Search

Objectives: This study sought to determine the degree of Evolut (Medtronic) leaflet pinning, diameter expansion, leaflet overhang, and performance at different implant depths of the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3, Edwards Lifesciences LLC) transcatheter heart valve (THV) within the Evolut THV., Background: Preservation of coronary access and flow is a major factor when considering the treatment of failed Evolut THVs., Methods: An in vitro study was performed with 20-, 23-, 26-, and 29-mm S3 THVs deployed within 23-, 26-, 29-, and 34-mm Evolut R THVs, respectively. The S3 outflow was positioned at various depths at node 4, 5, and 6 of the Evolut R. Neoskirt height, leaflet overhang, performance, and Evolut R valve housing diameter expansion were assessed under physiological conditions as per ISO 5840-3 standard., Results: The neoskirt height for the Evolut R was shorter when the S3 outflow was positioned at node 4 compared with node 6 (node 4 height for 23 mm = 16.3 mm, 26 mm = 17.1 mm, 29 mm = 18.3 mm, and 34 mm = 19.9 mm vs node 6 height for 23 mm = 23.9 mm, 26 mm = 23.4 mm, 29 mm = 24.7 mm, and 34 mm = 27 mm Evolut R). All configurations exhibited acceptable hydrodynamic performance irrespective of the degree of leaflet overhang, except the 29-mm S3 implanted in 34-mm Evolut R at node 4 (regurgitant fraction >20%). The valve housing radius of the index Evolut R increased when the S3 was implanted, with the increase ranging from 0 to 2.5 mm., Conclusions: Placement of the S3 at a lower implant position within an index Evolut R reduces the neoskirt height with no significant compromise to S3 valve function despite a higher degree of leaflet overhang. Low S3 implantation may facilitate future coronary access after redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Funding for the study was provided by Medtronic. Dr Akodad has received research funding from Medtronic, Biotronik, MUSE Explore, and Federation Française de Cardiologie. Dr Tang is a physician proctor and consultant for Medtronic; is a consultant for Abbott Structural Heart and NeoChord; and is a physician advisory board member for Abbott Structural Heart and JenValve. Dr Gada is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Bard Medical, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr Rogers is a consultant and physician proctor to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has equity in Transmural Systems; and is a co-inventor on dedicated electrosurgery devices assigned to NIH. Dr Rutkin serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Puri is a consultant to Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Philips, Bioventrix, Products & Features, Shockwave Medical, Centerline Biomedical, and VDyne. Dr Rovin is a physician proctor with Medtronic and Abbott; and is a Speakers Bureau for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Leipsic holds institutional research core lab agreements with Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Pi CARDIA. Dr Caskey serves as a proctor for Medtronic. Dr Sondergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Sahajanand Medical Technology. Dr Grubb is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences; is a speaker, proctor, and principal investigator for Medtronic; and her employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Gleason’s employer receives institutional grants and educational funding from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; he has no personal financial disclosures. Ms Garde, Mr Tadros, and Mr Teodoru are all employees and shareholders of Medtronic. Dr Wood is a consultant and receives unrestricted grant support from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott Vascular. Mr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received speaking fees from Edwards Lifesciences and NVT. 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.)

Objectives: The REFLECT II (Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of the TriGUARD 3 (TG3) cerebral embolic protection in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Background: Cerebral embolization occurs frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement and procedure-related ischemic stroke occurs in 2% to 6% of patients at 30 days. Whether cerebral protection with TriGuard 3 is safe and effective in reducing procedure-related cerebral injury is not known., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, 2:1 randomized (TG3 vs. no TG3) study was designed to enroll up to 345 patients. The primary 30-day safety endpoint (Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined) was compared with a performance goal (PG). The primary hierarchical composite efficacy endpoint (including death or stroke at 30 days, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score worsening in hospital, and cerebral ischemic lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 2 to 5 days) was compared using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method., Results: REFLECT II enrolled 220 of the planned 345 patients (63.8%), including 41 roll-in and 179 randomized patients (121 TG3 and 58 control subjects) at 18 US sites. The sponsor closed the study early after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended enrollment suspension for unblinded safety data review. The trial met its primary safety endpoint compared with the PG (15.9% vs. 34.4% (p < 0.0001). The primary hierarchal efficacy endpoint at 30 days was not met (mean scores [higher is better]: -8.58 TG3 vs. 8.08 control; p = 0.857). A post hoc diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging analysis of per-patient total lesion volume above incremental thresholds showed numeric reductions in total lesion volume >500 mm 3 (-9.7%) and >1,000 mm 3 (-44.5%) in the TG3 group, which were more pronounced among patients with full TG3 coverage: -51.1% (>500 mm 3 ) and -82.9% (>1,000 mm 3 )., Conclusions: The REFLECT II trial demonstrated that the TG3 was safe compared with a historical PG but did not meet its pre-specified primary superiority efficacy endpoint., Competing Interests: FUNDING SUPPORT AND Author Disclosures This work was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Keystone Heart. Dr. Nazif has equity in Venus Medtech; and has received consulting fees or honoraria from Keystone Heart, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Dhoble has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Keystone Heart. Dr. Forrest has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Zivadinov has received personal compensation from Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Sanofi, Keystone Heart, Protembis, and Novartis for speaker and consulting fees; and has received financial support for research activities from Sanofi, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mapi Pharma, Keystone Heart, Protembis, Boston Scientific, and V-WAVE Medical. Dr. Dwyer has received personal compensation from Novartis, EMD Serono, and Keystone Heart; and has received financial support for research activities from Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Mapi Pharma, Keystone Heart, Protembis, and V-WAVE Medical. Dr. Lansky has equity in Venus Medtech; and has received consulting fees from Keystone Heart, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. 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.)

Objectives: To assess aortic arch morphology and aortic length in patients with dissection, traumatic injury, and aneurysm undergoing TEVAR, and to identify characteristics specific to different pathologies., Method: This was a retrospective analysis of the aortic arch morphology and aortic length of dissection, traumatic injury, and aneurysmal patients. Computed tomography imaging was evaluated of 210 patients (49 dissection, 99 traumatic injury, 62 aneurysm) enrolled in three trials that received the conformable GORE TAG thoracic endoprosthesis. The mean age of trauma patients was 43 ± 19.6 years, 57 ± 11.7 years for dissection and 72 ± 9.6 years for aneurysm patients. A standardized protocol was used to measure aortic arch diameter, length, and take-off angle and clockface orientation of branch vessels. Differences in arch anatomy and length were assessed using ANOVA and independent t tests., Results: Of the 210 arches evaluated, 22% had arch vessel common trunk configurations. The aortic diameter and the distance from the left main coronary (LMC) to the left common carotid (LCC) were greater in dissection patients than in trauma or aneurysm patients (p < .001). Aortic diameter in aneurysm patients was greater compared with trauma patients (p < .05). The distances from the branch vessels to the celiac artery (CA) were greater in dissection and aneurysm patients than in trauma patients (p < .001). The take-off angle of the innominate (I), LCCA, and left subclavian (LS) were greater, between 19% and 36%, in trauma patients than in dissection and aneurysm patients (p < .001). Clockface orientation of the arch vessels varies between pathologies., Conclusions: Arch anatomy has significant morphologic differences when comparing aortic pathologies. Describing these differences in a large sample of patients is beneficial for device designs and patient selection., (Copyright © 2015 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: As thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) are more frequently being treated with endografts, the anatomic challenges of the thoracic aorta have led to design modifications of endografts. The Conformable GORE TAG (CTAG) device (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) was specifically designed to be more conformable in tortuous anatomy, more resistant to compression, and more accommodating to various aortic diameters compared with the original GORE TAG device. This prospective, multicenter study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the CTAG endograft in the repair of descending TAA., Methods: This was a prospective, multicenter regulatory study with a primary end point of freedom from major device event through 1 month after treatment. Two-year outcomes included aneurysm-related morbidity (endoleaks and morphology changes), aneurysm-related mortality, and all-cause mortality., Results: Fifty-one patients were enrolled between October 2009 and October 2010, with at least one endograft implanted in 50 patients. After the regulatory study successfully completed its primary end point and expanded to a continued-access phase, 15 additional patients were enrolled in the continued-access arm of the study from February 2011 until September 2011, for a total treatment group of 66 patients for the early results and 65 patients for the long-term clinical results with imaging evaluation. There was one 30-day death (1.5%), two patients (3%) with spinal cord ischemia, and two central strokes (3%) ≤30 days. Five patients (7.6%) died ≤1 year; 1 of ascending aortic aneurysm rupture, 2 of cardiac disease, and 2 of respiratory failure. The core laboratory adjudicated 1-month imaging in 60 patients (92.3%), where nine endoleaks (15.0%) were identified (1 type Ia, 4 type II, and 4 indeterminate). Forty-five patients (69.2%) had 2-year imaging with five endoleaks (11.1%; two type II and three indeterminate), and one patient had a distal aortic dilatation that required a secondary intervention. At 2 years, 20 of 38 imaged patients (52.6%) had aneurysm shrinkage ≥5 mm, 15 (39.5%) had no change in diameter, and three patients (7.9%) had an increase in aneurysm diameter of ≥5 mm. There were no conversions, fractures, compressions, or aneurysm ruptures of the treated segment through 2 years., Conclusions: This next-generation thoracic endograft has a low rate of major device events through 2 years, with no graft compressions or device failures. The data for this new endograft demonstrate favorable outcomes and confirm low risks for treatment for patients with TAA. Follow-up will be continued for 5 years., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)