Search

Background: In patients with low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS) and low transvalvular flow, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is recommended to determine AS severity, whereas the degree of aortic valve calcification (AVC) supposedly correlates with AS severity according to current European and American guidelines. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between AVC and AS severity as determined using echocardiography and DSE in patients with aortic valve area <1 cm2 and peak aortic valve velocity <4.0 m/s. Methods: All patients underwent DSE to determine AS severity and multislice computed tomography to quantify AVC. Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic value of AVC for AS severity grading as determined using echocardiography and DSE in men and women. Results: A total of 214 patients were included. Median age was 78 years (25th-75th percentile: 71-84 years) and 25% were women. Left ventricular ejection fraction was reduced (<50%) in 197 (92.1%) patients. Severe AS was diagnosed in 106 patients (49.5%). Moderate AS was diagnosed in 108 patients (50.5%; in 77 based on resting transthoracic echocardiography, in 31 confirmed using DSE). AVC score was high (≥2,000 for men or ≥1,200 for women) in 47 (44.3%) patients with severe AS and in 47 (43.5%) patients with moderate AS. AVC sensitivity was 44.3%, specificity was 56.5%, and positive and negative predictive values for severe AS were 50.0% and 50.8%, respectively. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.508 for men and 0.524 for women. Conclusions: Multi-slice computed tomography–derived AVC scores showed poor discrimination between grades of AS severity using DSE and cannot replace DSE in the diagnostic work-up of low-gradient severe AS.

Background The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a marker of systemic inflammation has been associated with worse prognosis in several chronic disease states, including heart failure. However, few data exist on the prognostic impact of elevated baseline NLR or change in NLR levels during follow-up in patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR) for aortic stenosis. Methods and Results NLR was available in 5881 patients with severe aortic stenosis receiving TAVR or SAVR in PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) I, II, and S3 trials/registries (median [Q1, Q3] NLR, 3.30 [2.40, 4.90]); mean NLR, 4.10; range, 0.5-24.9) and was evaluated as continuous variable and categorical tertiles (low: NLR ≤2.70, n=1963; intermediate: NLR 2.70-4.20, n=1958; high: NLR ≥4.20, n=1960). No patients had known baseline infection. High baseline NLR was associated with increased risk of death or rehospitalization at 3 years (58.4% versus 41.0%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.18-1.63; P<0.0001) compared with those with low NLR, irrespective of treatment modality. In both patients treated with TAVR and patients treated with SAVR, NLR decreased between baseline and 2 years. A 1-unit observed decrease in NLR between baseline and 1 year was associated with lower risk of death or rehospitalization between 1 year and 3 years (aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89; P<0.0001). Conclusions Elevated baseline NLR was independently associated with increased subsequent mortality and rehospitalization after TAVR or SAVR. The observed decrease in NLR after TAVR or SAVR was associated with improved outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00530894, NCT0134313, NCT02184442, NCT03225001, NCT0322141.

Right ventricular pressure-volume (PV) analysis characterizes ventricular systolic and diastolic properties independent of loading conditions like volume status and afterload. While long-considered the gold-standard method for quantifying myocardial chamber performance, it was traditionally only performed in highly specialized research settings. With recent advances in catheter technology and more sophisticated approaches to analyze PV data, it is now more commonly used in a variety of clinical and research settings. Herein, we review the basic techniques for PV loop measurement, analysis, and interpretation with the aim of providing readers with a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of PV analysis. In the second half of the review, we detail key scenarios in which right ventricular PV analysis has influenced our understanding of clinically relevant topics and where the technique can be applied to resolve additional areas of uncertainty. All told, PV analysis has an important role in advancing our understanding of right ventricular physiology and its contribution to cardiovascular function in health and disease.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of initial deployment orientation of SAPIEN 3, Evolut, and ACURATE-neo transcatheter heart valves on their final orientation and neocommissural overlap with coronary arteries. Background: Coronary artery access and redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) following initial TAVR may be influenced by transcatheter heart valve orientation. In this study the impact of transcatheter heart valve deployment orientation on commissural alignment was evaluated. Methods: Pre-TAVR computed tomography and procedural fluoroscopy were analyzed in 828 patients who underwent TAVR (483 SAPIEN 3, 245 Evolut, and 100 ACURATE-neo valves) from March 2016 to September 2019 at 5 centers. Coplanar fluoroscopic views were coregistered to pre-TAVR computed tomography to determine commissural alignment. Severe overlap between neocommissural posts and coronary arteries was defined as 0° to 20° apart. The SAPIEN 3 had 1 commissural post crimped at 3, 6, 9, and 12 o'clock. The Evolut “Hat” marker and ACURATE-neo commissural post at deployment were classified as center back (CB), inner curve (IC), outer curve (OC), or center front (CF) and matched with final orientation. Results: Initial SAPIEN 3 crimped orientation had no impact on commissural alignment. Evolut “Hat” at OC or CF at initial deployment had less severe overlap than IC or CB (p < 0.001) against the left main (15.7% vs. 66.0%) and right coronary (7.1% vs. 51.1%) arteries. Tracking Evolut “Hat” at OC of the descending aorta (n = 107) improved OC at deployment from 70.2% to 91.6% (p = 0.002) and reduced coronary artery overlap by 36% to 60% (p < 0.05). ACURATE-neo commissural post at CB or IC during deployment had less coronary artery overlap compared to CF or OC (p < 0.001), with intentional alignment successful in 5 of 7 cases. Conclusions: This is the first systematic evaluation of commissural alignment in TAVR. More than 30% to 50% of cases had overla

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS).OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry.METHODS: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.RESULTS: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28).CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is being increasingly performed in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS).OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes in patients with bicuspid versus tricuspid AS from the Bicuspid AS TAVR multicenter registry.METHODS: Outcomes of 561 patients with bicuspid AS and 4,546 patients with tricuspid AS were compared after propensity score matching, assembling 546 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria.RESULTS: Compared with patients with tricuspid AS, patients with bicuspid AS had more frequent conversion to surgery (2.0% vs. 0.2%; p = 0.006) and a significantly lower device success rate (85.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.002). Early-generation devices were implanted in 320 patients with bicuspid and 321 patients with tricuspid AS, whereas new-generation devices were implanted in 226 and 225 patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AS, respectively. Within the group receiving early-generation devices, bicuspid AS had more frequent aortic root injury (4.5% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.015) when receiving the balloon-expanding device, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (19.4% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.02) when receiving the self-expanding device. Among patients with new-generation devices, however, procedural results were comparable across different prostheses. The cumulative all-cause mortality rates at 2 years were comparable between bicuspid and tricuspid AS (17.2% vs. 19.4%; p = 0.28).CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tricuspid AS, TAVR in bicuspid AS was associated with a similar prognosis, but lower device success rate. Procedural differences were observed in patients treated with the early-generation devices, whereas no differences were observed with the new-generation devices.

BACKGROUND : Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES : The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. METHODS : The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm2/m2, moderate if the indexed EOA was $0.65 but #0.85 cm2/m2, or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm2/m2. LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n ¼ 270), TAVR-RCT (n ¼ 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n ¼ 1,637) cohorts. RESULTS : The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p¼0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p¼0.017) and TAVRNRCA (p ¼ 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p ¼ 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p ¼ 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p ¼ 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p ¼ 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p ¼ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS : In patients with seve

Objectives: This study sought to compare echocardiographic findings in patients with critical aortic stenosis following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background: The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial randomized patients 1:1 to SAVR or TAVR. Methods: Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the procedure and analyzed in a core laboratory. For the analysis of post-implantation variables, the first interpretable study (≤6 months) was used. Results: Both groups showed a decrease in aortic valve gradients and increase in effective orifice area (EOA) (p < 0.0001), which remained stable over 2 years. Compared with SAVR, TAVR resulted in larger indexed EOA (p = 0.038), less prosthesis-patient mismatch (p = 0.019), and more total and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (p < 0.0001). Baseline echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were lower peak transaortic gradient in TAVR patients, and low left ventricular diastolic volume, low stroke volume, and greater severity of mitral regurgitation in SAVR patients. Post-implantation echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were: larger left ventricular diastolic volume, left ventricular systolic volume and EOA, decreased ejection fraction, and greater aortic regurgitation in TAVR patients; and smaller left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes, low stroke volume, smaller EOA, and prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR patients. Conclusions: Patients randomized to either SAVR or TAVR experience enduring, significant reductions in transaortic gradients and increase in EOA. Compared with SAVR, TAVR patients had higher indexed EOA, lower prosthesis-patient mismatch, and more aortic regurgitation. Univariate predictors of death for the TAVR and SAVR groups differed and might allow future refinement in patient selection.

Background Few studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). Particularly, limited data exist comparing the results of TAVR with new-generation devices versus early-generation devices. Objectives This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS with early- and new-generation devices. Methods The Bicuspid TAVR Registry is an international multicenter study enrolling consecutive patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR between April 2005 and May 2015. Results Of 301 patients, 199 patients (71.1%) were treated with early-generation devices (Sapien XT [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, California]: n = 87; CoreValve [Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota]: n = 112) and 102 with new-generation devices (Sapien 3 [Edwards Lifesciences Corporation]: n = 91; Lotus [Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts]: n = 11). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.7 ± 5.2 without significant differences between groups (4.6 ± 5.1 vs. 4.9 ± 5.4; p = 0.57). Overall, all-cause mortality rates were 4.3% at 30 days and 14.4% at 1 year. Moderate or severe paravalvular leak was absent and significantly less frequent with new-generation compared to early-generation devices (0.0% vs. 8.5%; p = 0.002), which resulted in a higher device success rate (92.2% vs. 80.9%; p = 0.01). There were no differences between early- and new-generation devices in stroke (2.5% vs. 2.0%; p > 0.99), life-threatening bleeding (3.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), major vascular complication (4.5% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.76), stage 2 to 3 acute kidney injury (2.5% vs. 2.9%; p > 0.99), early safety endpoints (15.1% vs. 10.8%; p = 0.30), and 30-day all-cause mortality (4.5% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.99). Conclusions The clinical outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AS were favorable. New-generation devices were associated with less paravalv

BACKGROUND : Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES : The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. METHODS : The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm2/m2, moderate if the indexed EOA was $0.65 but #0.85 cm2/m2, or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm2/m2. LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n ¼ 270), TAVR-RCT (n ¼ 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n ¼ 1,637) cohorts. RESULTS : The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p¼0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p¼0.017) and TAVRNRCA (p ¼ 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p ¼ 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p ¼ 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p ¼ 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p ¼ 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p ¼ 0.02). CONCLUSIONS : In patients with seve

This study sought to compare echocardiographic findings in patients with critical aortic stenosis following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Background The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial randomized patients 1:1 to SAVR or TAVR. Methods Echocardiograms were obtained at baseline, discharge, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after the procedure and analyzed in a core laboratory. For the analysis of post-implantation variables, the first interpretable study ( 6 months) was used. Results Both groups showed a decrease in aortic valve gradients and increase in effective orifice area (EOA) (p < 0.0001), which remained stable over 2 years. Compared with SAVR, TAVR resulted in larger indexed EOA (p¼0.038), less prosthesis-patient mismatch (p ¼ 0.019), and more total and paravalvular aortic regurgitation (p < 0.0001). Baseline echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were lower peak transaortic gradient in TAVR patients, and low left ventricular diastolic volume, low stroke volume, and greater severity of mitral regurgitation in SAVR patients. Post-implantation echocardiographic univariate predictors of death were: larger left ventricular diastolic volume, left ventricular systolic volume and EOA, decreased ejection fraction, and greater aortic regurgitation in TAVR patients ; and smaller left ventricular systolic and diastolic volumes, low stroke volume, smaller EOA, and prosthesis-patient mismatch in SAVR patients. Conclusions Patients randomized to either SAVR or TAVR experience enduring, significant reductions in transaortic gradients and increase in EOA. Compared with SAVR, TAVR patients had higher indexed EOA, lower prosthesis-patient mismatch, and more aortic regurgitation. Univariate predictors of death for the TAVR and SAVR groups differed and might allow future refinement in patient selection.