Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an established, guideline-endorsed treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Precise sizing of the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the aortic annulus is facilitated by increasing its diameter in 1·5 mm increments, compared with the usual 3 mm increments in valve size. The LANDMARK trial aimed to show non-inferiority of the Myval THV series compared with the contemporary THVs Sapien Series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) or Evolut Series (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA)., Methods: In this prospective, multinational, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial across 31 hospitals in 16 countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Brazil), 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Myval THV or a contemporary THV. Eligibility was primarily decided by the heart team in accordance with 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. As per the criteria of the third Valve Academic Research Consortium, the primary endpoint at 30 days was a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), acute kidney injury (stages 2-4), major vascular complications, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and conduction system disturbances resulting in a permanent pacemaker implantation. Non-inferiority of the study device was tested in the intention-to-treat population using a non-inferiority margin of 10·44% and assuming an event rate of 26·10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04275726, and EudraCT, 2020-000137-40, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Jan 6, 2021, and Dec 5, 2023, 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned, 384 to the Myval THV and 384 to a contemporary THV. 369 (48%) participants had their sex recorded as female, and 399 (52%) as male. The mean age of participants was 80·0 years (SD 5·7) for those treated with the Myval THV and 80·4 years (5·4) for those treated with a contemporary THV. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were the same in both groups (Myval 2·6% [IQR 1·7-4·0] vs contemporary 2·6% [1·7-4·0]). The primary endpoint showed non-inferiority of the Myval (25%) compared with contemporary THV (27%), with a risk difference of -2·3% (one-sided upper 95% CI 3·8, p non-inferiority <0·0001). No significant difference was seen in individual components of the primary composite endpoint., Interpretation: In individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis, the Myval THV met its primary endpoint at 30 days., Funding: Meril Life Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NvR reports grant funding and personal fees from Abbott; grants from Philips, Biotronik, and Medtronic; and personal fees from MicroPort, Bayer, and RainMed Medical outside the submitted work. IJA-S reports being a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Meril Life Sciences. AIj reports consulting fees from Meril Life Sciences, Medtronic, Angiocare, Keystone Heart, PulseCath, Salveo, Abbott, Philips, Fysicon, Cardiawave, Pi Medical, and Svelte. DU reports lecture and educational event fees from Medtronic; a lecture fee from and being a proctor for Meril Life Sciences; and being a member of the Medtronic EMEA surgical advisory board. RSH reports grant funding from Bayer; and speaker fees from Amgen, Novartis, and Abbott outside the submitted work. MW reports institutional research funding from Emboline, Meril Life Sciences, Edwards Lifesciences, and TransAortic Medical. MPa reports honoraria from Boston Scientific, Philips, and Abbott. OA reports research grants and lecture fees from and being a proctor for Abbott; and advisory board participation for and support for attending meetings from Meril Life Sciences. W-KK reports honoraria or consultancy fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Meril Life Sciences, and Hi-D Imaging; and participation on an advisory board or data and safety monitoring board for Abbott and Boston Scientific. JR reports being a consultant with Medtronic and Qatma; being a proctor for Medtronic; and travel support for attending meetings from Meril Life Sciences, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. AT reports a grant from the Fukuda Foundation for Medical Technology. SG reports honoraria or consultancy fees from Biosensors. PWS reports consultancy fees from SMT, Novartis, Meril Life Sciences, Xeltis, and Philips. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected health care systems. Patients in need of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are especially susceptible to treatment delays., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global TAVR activity., Methods: This international registry reported monthly TAVR case volume in participating institutions prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2018 to December 2021). Hospital-level information on public vs private, urban vs rural, and TAVR volume was collected, as was country-level information on socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and governmental public health responses., Results: We included 130 centers from 61 countries, including 65,980 TAVR procedures. The first and second pandemic waves were associated with a significant reduction of 15% (P < 0.001) and 7% (P < 0.001) in monthly TAVR case volume, respectively, compared with the prepandemic period. The third pandemic wave was not associated with reduced TAVR activity. A greater reduction in TAVR activity was observed in Africa (-52%; P = 0.001), Central-South America (-33%; P < 0.001), and Asia (-29%; P < 0.001). Private hospitals (P = 0.005), urban areas (P = 0.011), low-volume centers (P = 0.002), countries with lower development (P < 0.001) and economic status (P < 0.001), higher COVID-19 incidence (P < 0.001), and more stringent public health restrictions (P < 0.001) experienced a greater reduction in TAVR activity., Conclusions: TAVR procedural volume declined substantially during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Africa, Central-South America, and Asia. National socioeconomic status, COVID-19 incidence, and public health responses were associated with treatment delays. This information should inform public health policy in case of future global health crises., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lefèvre has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and received minor fees from Boston Scientific, Terumo, and Abbott. Dr Pilgrim has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens; and speaker fees and consultancy fees to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Biosensors, and Highlife. Dr Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Teleflex; and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Inari, JenaValve, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Siemens, Pie Medical, and Teleflex. Dr Swaans has served as a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Bioventrix Inc, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Medtronic, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Prendergast has received speaker/consultancy fees from Medtronic, MicroPort, Anteris, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Resar has received institutional research funding from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott; and served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Chen has served as a consultant for Venus MedTech. Dr Hildick-Smith has received research funds and speaker fees from Medtronic. Dr Spence has received TAVR proctoring and consultancy fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bunc has served as a proctor for Abbott, Meril, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Molnár has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Toggweiler has served as a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; has served as a consultant for Medira, Shockwave, Teleflex, atHeart Medical, Cardiac Dimensions, and Polares Medical; has received institutional research grants from Boston Scientific, Fumedica, and Novartis; has received speaker honoraria from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, ReCor Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo; and holds equity in Hi-D Imaging. Dr Ojeda has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and speaker fees from Philips and Word Medica. Dr Toutouzas has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Abbott, Myval, and Boston Scientific. Dr AlMerri has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic. Dr Noble has served as a proctor for Medtronic; and received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic. Dr Kala has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific; served on the Speakers Bureau for Edwards Lifesciences, Servier, and AstraZeneca; and received research support from Novartis. Dr Kurt has served as a TAVR proctor for Abbott. Dr Yin has served as a TAVR proctor for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr Sztejfman has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and MicroPort. Dr Mendiz has served as a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Gunasekaran has received fees from Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kao has served as a proctor for Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dager has served as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Ferrero-Guadagnoli has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Modine has served as a consultant for and received honorarium from Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hayashida has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific, and served as a consultant for Cordis and Medtronic. Dr Mylotte has received institutional grant funding from Boston Scientific and Medtronic; and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and MicroPort. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Methods: In a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Results: In total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032)., Conclusions: Periprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Van Miegham has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Barbanti has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Grasso is a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Andreas is a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr Estévez-Loureiro is a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a proctor for Abbott. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and/or institutional research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Amat-Santos is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Finkelstein is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees 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 © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Refractory angina (RA) is considered the end-stage of coronary artery disease, and often has no interventional treatment options. Coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is a recent addition to the therapeutic arsenal, but its efficacy has only been evaluated on small populations. The RESOURCE registry provides further insights into this therapy., Methods: The RESOURCE is an observational, retrospective registry that includes 658 patients with RA from 20 centers in Europe, United Kingdom and Israel. Prespecified endpoints were the amelioration of anginal symptoms evaluated with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score, the rates of procedural success and complications, and MACEs as composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndromes, and stroke., Results: At a median follow-up of 502 days (IQR 225-1091) after CSR implantation, 39.7% of patients improved by ≥2 CCS classes (primary endpoint), and 76% by ≥1 class. Procedural success was achieved in 96.7% of attempts, with 3% of procedures aborted mostly for unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Any complication occurred in 5.7% of procedures, but never required bailout surgery nor resulted in intra- or periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. One patient developed periprocedural stroke after inadvertent carotid artery puncture. At the last available follow-up, overall mortality and MACE were 10.4% and 14.6% respectively. At one, three and five years, mortality rate at Kaplan-Meier analysis was 4%, 13.7%, and 23.4% respectively., Conclusions: CSR implantation is safe and reduces angina in patients with refractory angina., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of residual mitral regurgitation (MR) on mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: MR is common in patients undergoing TAVR. Data on optimal management of patients with significant MR after TAVR are limited., Methods: The registry consisted of 16 TAVR centers (n = 7,303). Outcomes of patients with ≥ moderate versus lesser grade MR after TAVR were compared., Results: In 1,983 (27.2%) patients, baseline MR grade was ≥ moderate. MR regressed in 874 (44.1%) patients and persisted in 1,109 (55.9%) after TAVR. Four-year mortality was higher for those with MR persistence, but not for those with MR regression after TAVR, compared with nonsignificant baseline MR (43.8% vs. 35.1% vs. 32.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; p = 0.008; HR: 1.02; p = 0.383, respectively). New York Heart Association functional class III to IV after TAVR was more common in those with MR persistence vs. regression (14.4% vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001). In a propensity score-matched cohort (91 patients' pairs), with significant residual MR after TAVR who did or did not undergo staged mitral intervention, staged intervention was associated with a better functional class through 1 year of follow-up (82.4% vs. 33.3% New York Heart Association functional class I or II; p < 0.001), and a numerically lower 4-year mortality, which was not statistically significant (64.6% vs. 37.5%; HR: 1.66; p = 0.097)., Conclusions: Risk stratification based on improvement in MR and symptoms after TAVR can identify patients at increased mortality risk after TAVR. These patients may benefit from a staged transcatheter mitral intervention, but this requires further proof from future studies. (Transcatheter Treatment for Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Disease. The Aortic+Mitral TRAnsCatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry [AMTRAC]; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Barbanti has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grasso has served as a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr. De Backer has received research grants and consultant fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Andreas has served as a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr. Estévez-Loureiro has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr. Amat-Santos has served as a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr. Nombela-Franco has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as a proctor for Abbott. Dr. Søndergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Van Mieghem has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. 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.)

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and consequent acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are substantial contributors to morbidity and mortality across Europe. Much of these diseases burden is modifiable, in particular by lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Current guidelines are based on the sound premise that with respect to low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), "lower is better for longer", and the recent data have strongly emphasized the need of also "the earlier the better". In addition to statins, which have been available for several decades, the availability of ezetimibe and inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) are additional very effective approach to LLT, especially for those at very high and extremely high cardiovascular risk. LLT is initiated as a response to an individual's calculated risk of future ASCVD and is intensified over time in order to meet treatment goals. However, in real-life clinical practice goals are not met in a substantial proportion of patients. This Position Paper complements existing guidelines on the management of lipids in patients following ACS. Bearing in mind the very high risk of further events in ACS, we propose practical solutions focusing on immediate combination therapy in strict clinical scenarios, to improve access and adherence to LLT in these patients. We also define an 'Extremely High Risk' group of individuals following ACS, completing the attempt made in the recent European guidelines, and suggest mechanisms to urgently address lipid-medicated cardiovascular risk in these patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess coronary accessibility after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR using multidetector computed tomography., Background: Expanding TAVR to patients with longer life expectancy may involve more frequent bioprosthetic valve failure and need for redo TAVR. Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging, particularly as the leaflets from the initial transcatheter heart valve (THV) will form a neo-skirt following TAVR-in-TAVR., Methods: In 45 patients treated with different combinations of CoreValve and Evolut (CV/EV) THVs with supra-annular leaflet position and SAPIEN THVs with intra-annular leaflet position, post-TAVR-in-TAVR multidetector computed tomographic scans were analyzed to examine coronary accessibility., Results: After TAVR-in-TAVR, the coronary arteries originated below the top of the neo-skirt in 90% of CV/EV-first cases compared with 67% of SAPIEN-first cases (p = 0.009). For these coronary arteries originating below the top of the neo-skirt, the distance between the THV and the aortic wall was <3 mm in 56% and 25% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.035). Coronary access may be further complicated by THV-THV stent frame strut misalignment in 53% of CV/EV-in-CV/EV cases. The risk for technically impossible coronary access was 27% and 10% in CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.121). Absence of THV interference with coronary accessibility can be expected in 8% and 33% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging in a significant proportion of patients. THVs with intra-annular leaflet position or low commissural height and large open cells may be preferable in terms of coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. De Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kim has been a proctor for and has received speaking fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Thomas Pilgrim has received institutional research grants and speaking fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for HighLife SAS. Dr. Barbanti has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Nombela-Franco has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kofoed has received institutional grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine McKinney Møllers Fond, the John and Birthe Meyer Foundation, The Research Council of Rigshopitalet, the University of Copenhagen, the Danish Heart Foundation, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation by The Danish Council for Strategic Research, and Canon Medical Corporation. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed. Dr. Sinning has received speaking honoraria and research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Webb has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Prof. Dr. Søndergaard has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In CO-poisoned patients without loss of consciousness no significant long-term functional differences in outcome have been shown in any hyperbaric versus normobaric oxygen studies. Since brain histology changes cannot be studied in CO-poisoned patients we evaluated the efficacy of normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy in preventing brain cell injury in CO-poisoned animals without loss of consciousness. Wistar rats without loss of consciousness after exposure to 3000ppm of CO for 60min were exposed to ambient air (group 1), 100% oxygen at a pressure of 1bar (group 2) and 100% oxygen at a pressure of 3bar (group 3). The rats were sacrificed after two weeks, brain samples were stained with hematoxylin-eosin and a percentage of pyknotic cells in hippocampus was reported. Analyses of differences in percentage of pyknotic cells between different kinds of therapy showed that the percentage of pyknotic cells of the second group (2.3+/-1.2%) treated with normobaric oxygen and the third group (4.5+/-4.0%) treated with hyperbaric oxygen were similar, and both of them were significantly different, with a much lower percentage of pyknotic cells, from the first group left on ambient air (47.7+/-10.0%). In conclusion, immediate normobaric and hyperbaric oxygen therapy equally prevents hippocampal cell injury in CO-poisoned rats without loss of consciousness.