Search

RESPOND is a prospective, single-arm study enrolling 1014 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients. The objective of this analysis is to assess the impact of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices and prosthetic valve repositioning on the risk of neurologic complications in patients treated with the fully repositionable Lotus Valv

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of nonagenarians (>= 90 years) with that of younger (< 90 years) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in current practice. Methods Data are collected from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY), which was designed to evaluate current practice in the invasive treatment of patients with aortic valve diseases in Germany. Data were analyzed regarding procedural outcome, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes of nonagenarians in comparison to that of younger patients. Results Between 2011 and 2015, 2436/33,051 (7.3%) nonagenarians underwent TAVI and were included in GARY. Nonagenarians were significantly more often male (45.2% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.001), frail (38.7% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.001), and had higher EuroSCORE scores than younger patient group (23.2% vs. 17.0%). Nonagenarians were significantly less often treated via transapical access (16.3% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001). Procedure was performed significantly less often in general anesthesia (58.2% vs. 60.7%, p = 0.02) in nonagenarians, while necessity of pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in nonagenarians (27.2% vs. 24.8%, p > 0.001). The incidence of other typical postprocedural complications such as severe bleeding events and vascular complications were comparable between groups. However, 30-day (5.2% vs. 3.9%) and 1-year (22.7% vs. 17.7%) mortality rates were significantly higher among nonagenarians and age >= 90 years could be identified as an isolated risk factor for mortality. Conclusion TAVI is a highly standardized procedure that can be performed safely with high procedural success even in very old patients. Although mortality is significantly higher in these patients-most probably due to the intrinsic higher risk profile of the very old patients-the results are still acceptable. To optimize outcome, especially elderly patients seem to profit from a procedure under local anesthesia or conscious sedation, to minimize the rate of p

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of nonagenarians (>= 90 years) with that of younger (< 90 years) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in current practice. Methods Data are collected from the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY), which was designed to evaluate current practice in the invasive treatment of patients with aortic valve diseases in Germany. Data were analyzed regarding procedural outcome, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes of nonagenarians in comparison to that of younger patients. Results Between 2011 and 2015, 2436/33,051 (7.3%) nonagenarians underwent TAVI and were included in GARY. Nonagenarians were significantly more often male (45.2% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.001), frail (38.7% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.001), and had higher EuroSCORE scores than younger patient group (23.2% vs. 17.0%). Nonagenarians were significantly less often treated via transapical access (16.3% vs. 22.3%, p < 0.001). Procedure was performed significantly less often in general anesthesia (58.2% vs. 60.7%, p = 0.02) in nonagenarians, while necessity of pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in nonagenarians (27.2% vs. 24.8%, p > 0.001). The incidence of other typical postprocedural complications such as severe bleeding events and vascular complications were comparable between groups. However, 30-day (5.2% vs. 3.9%) and 1-year (22.7% vs. 17.7%) mortality rates were significantly higher among nonagenarians and age >= 90 years could be identified as an isolated risk factor for mortality. Conclusion TAVI is a highly standardized procedure that can be performed safely with high procedural success even in very old patients. Although mortality is significantly higher in these patients-most probably due to the intrinsic higher risk profile of the very old patients-the results are still acceptable. To optimize outcome, especially elderly patients seem to profit from a procedure under local anesthesia or conscious sedation, to minimize the rate of p

Aims: Patients with bicuspid valves represent a challenging anatomical subgroup for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of the fully repositionable and retrievable Lotus Valve System in patients with bicuspid aortic valves enrolled in the RESPOND post-market registry. Methods and Results: The prospective, open-label RESPOND study enrolled 1,014 patients at 41 centers in Europe, New Zealand, and Latin America, 31 (3.1%) of whom had bicuspid aortic valves. The mean age in the bicuspid patient cohort was 76.4 years, 64.5% were male, and the baseline STS score was 6.0 ± 10.2. Procedural success was 100%, with no cases of malpositioning, valve migration, embolization, or valve-in-valve. Repositioning was attempted in 10 cases (32.3%). There was one death (3.2%) and one stroke (3.2%) at 30-day follow-up. Mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.7 ± 17.0 mmHg at baseline to 11.8 ± 5.1 mmHg at hospital discharge (P < 0.001); mean effective orifice area (EOA)

Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes with the Lotus valve (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) in a large international, multicenter prospective registry including patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) based on heart team consensus. Background: TAVR is a safe and effective treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis; however, limited data are available on TAVR with the repositionable and fully retrievable Lotus valve in unrestricted contemporary clinical practice. Methods: The RESPOND (Repositionable Lotus Valve System—Post-Market Evaluation of Real World Clinical Outcomes) study enrolled 1,014 patients; 996 patients were implanted with the Lotus valve (mean age 80.8 years, 50.8% female, mean STS score 6.0 ± 6.9%). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in the intent-to-treat population at 30 days and 1 year. An Extension cohort of 50 patients was treated with the Lotus valve with Depth Guard including a modified delivery system. Mortality and stroke were independently adjudicated. An independent core laboratory assessed echocardiographic data. Results: One-year clinical follow-up was available for 99.9% of Lotus valve-treated patients. At 1 year, the all-cause mortality rate was 11.7% and 4.1% of patients had experienced a disabling stroke. The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 32% (37% among pacemaker-naive patients). Echocardiographic data at 1 year were available for core laboratory assessment in 62.6% of patients. Paravalvular leak was absent or trace in 94.5%, mild in 5.1%, and moderate in 0.4% of patients. Data from the Extension cohort confirmed good clinical outcomes at 30 days with an 18% permanent pacemaker rate (20% among pacemaker-naive patients). Conclusions: One-year outcomes from the RESPOND study confirm the safety and efficacy of the Lotus valve when used in routine clinical practice. (Repositionable Lotus Valve System—Post-Market Evaluation of Real World Clinical

Aims: Life-threatening complications occur during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) which can require emergent cardiac surgery (ECS). Risks and outcomes of patients needing ECS during or immediately after TAVI are still unclear. Methods and results: Incidence, risk factors, management, and outcomes of patients requiring ECS during transfemoral (TF)-TAVI were analysed from a contemporary real-world multicentre registry. Between 2013 and 2016, 27 760 patients underwent TF-TAVI in 79 centres. Of these, 212 (0.76%) patients required ECS (age 82.4 ± 6.3 years, 67.5% females, logistic EuroSCORE: 17.1%, STS-score 5.8%). The risk of ECS declined from 2013 (1.07%) to 2014 (0.70%) but remained stable since. Annual TF-TAVI numbers have more than doubled from 2013 to 2016. Leading causes for ECS were left ventricular perforation by the guidewire (28.3%) and annular rupture (21.2%). Immediate procedural mortality (<72 h) of TF-TAVI patients requiring ECS was 34.6%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 46.0%, and highest in case of annular rupture (62%). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality following ECS were age > 85 years [odds ratio (OR) 1.87, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) (1.02–3.45), P = 0.044], annular rupture [OR 1.96, 95% CI (0.94–4.10), P = 0.060], and immediate ECS [OR 3.12, 95% CI (1.07–9.11), P = 0.037]. One year of survival of the 114 patients surviving the in-hospital period was only 40.4%. Conclusion: Between 2014 and 2016, the need for ECS remained stable around 0.7%. Left ventricular guidewire perforation and annular rupture were the most frequent causes, accounting for almost half of ECS cases. Half of the patients could be salvaged by ECS—nevertheless, 1 year of all-cause mortality was high even in those ECS patients surviving the in-hospital period.

Background The majority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) procedures are currently performed by percutaneous transfemoral approach. The potential contribution of the type of vascular closure device to the incidence of vascular complications is not clear. Aim To compare the efficacy of a Prostar XL-vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy. Methods The ClOsure device iN TRansfemoral aOrtic vaLve implantation (CONTROL) multi-center study included 3138 consecutive percutaneous transfemoral TAVI patients, categorized according to vascular closure strategy: Prostar XL-(Prostar group) vs. Perclose ProGlide-based vascular closure strategy (ProGlide group). Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Results Propensity matching identified 944 well-matched patients (472 patient pairs). Composite primary end point of major vascular complications or in-hospital mortality occurred more frequently in Prostar group when compared with ProGlide group (9.5 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.016), and was driven by higher rates of major vascular complication (7.4 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001) in the Prostar group. However, in-hospital mortality was similar between groups (4.9 vs. 3.5%, P = 0.2). Femoral artery stenosis occurred less frequently in the Prostar group (3.4 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.004), but overall, Prostar use was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (17.6 vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001) and with longer hospital stay (median 6 vs. 5 days, P = 0.007). Conclusions Prostar XL-based vascular closure in transfemoral TAVI procedures is associated with higher major vascular complication rates when compared with ProGlide; however, in-hospital mortality is similar with both devices.