Search

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: 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: Limited data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of TMVR in patients with failed mitral bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) and annuloplasty rings (valve-in-ring [ViR])., Methods: From the TMVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR were compared according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria., Results: A total of 248 patients with mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 8.9 ± 6.8% underwent TMVR. Transseptal access and the balloon-expandable valve were used in 33.1% and 89.9%, respectively. Compared with 176 patients undergoing ViV, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 ± 17.4% vs. 55.3 ± 11.1%; p < 0.001). Overall technical and device success rates were acceptable, at 92.3% and 85.5%, respectively. However, compared with the ViV group, the ViR group had lower technical success (83.3% vs. 96.0%; p = 0.001) due to more frequent second valve implantation (11.1% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.008), and lower device success (76.4% vs. 89.2%; p = 0.009) due to more frequent reintervention (16.7% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.03). Mean mitral valve gradients were similar between groups (6.4 ± 2.3 mm Hg vs. 5.8 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.17), whereas the ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation moderate or higher (19.4% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.003). Furthermore, the ViR group had more frequent life-threatening bleeding (8.3% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.03), acute kidney injury (11.1% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.001). The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the ViR group compared with the ViV group (28.7% vs. 12.6%; log-rank test, p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, failed annuloplasty ring was independently associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.34 to 5.43; p = 0.005)., Conclusions: The TMVR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or failed annuloplasty rings, but mitral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and mid-term mortality compared with mitral ViV., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the hemodynamic performance of a percutaneous bioprosthesis to that of surgically implanted (stented and stentless) bioprostheses for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis., Methods: Fifty patients who underwent percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) with the Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Inc., Irvine, California) were matched 1:1 for sex, aortic annulus diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, body surface area, and body mass index, with 2 groups of 50 patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a stented valve (Edwards Perimount Magna [SAVR-ST group]), or a stentless valve (Medtronic Freestyle, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota [SAVR-SL group]). Doppler echocardiographic data were prospectively obtained before the intervention, at discharge, and at 6- to 12-month follow-up., Results: Mean transprosthetic gradient at discharge was lower (p < 0.001) in the PAVI group (10 +/- 4 mm Hg) compared with the SAVR-ST (13 +/- 5 mm Hg) and SAVR-SL (14 +/- 6 mm Hg) groups. Aortic regurgitation (AR) occurred more frequently in the PAVI group (mild: 42%, moderate: 8%) compared with the SAVR-ST (mild: 10%, moderate: 0%) and SAVR-SL (mild: 12%, moderate: 0%) groups (p < 0.0001). At follow-up, the mean gradient in the PAVI group remained lower (p < 0.001) than that of the SAVR-ST group, but was similar to that of the SAVR-SL group. The incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower (p = 0.007) in the PAVI group (6%) compared with the SAVR-ST (28%) and SAVR-SL (20%) groups. However, the incidence of AR remained higher (p < 0.0001) in the PAVI group compared with the 2 other groups., Conclusions: PAVI provided superior hemodynamic performance compared with the surgical bioprostheses in terms of transprosthetic gradient and prevention of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, but was associated with a higher incidence of AR.

Objectives: We describe procedural and clinical outcomes in a high-risk cohort undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early next-generation transcatheter valve and delivery systems., Background: Percutaneous aortic valve replacement is gaining acceptance as a viable option in patients at high surgical risk. Broader application will require further advances in valve and delivery system technology., Methods: Transarterial aortic valve replacement was attempted in 25 patients (mean age 85 years) determined to be at high surgical risk due to comorbidities. A new delivery catheter system (RetroFlex 2, Edwards Lifesciences, Irving, California) was utilized in combination with either a balloon-expandable SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) valve or a next-generation low-profile cobalt-chromium bovine pericardial SAPIEN XT (Edwards Lifesciences) valve., Results: Percutaneous valve replacement was successful in all 25 high-risk patients. Aortic valve area increased from 0.59 +/- 0.15 cm(2) to 1.60 +/- 0.27 cm(2). In this high-risk cohort (Society of Thoracic Surgeons and logistic EuroSCORE estimates of surgical mortality were 8.9% and 21.0%, respectively), 30-day mortality was 0%., Conclusions: Technical and procedural advances in catheter systems and prosthetic valves designed for percutaneous aortic valve delivery may contribute to increased procedural success and improved clinical outcomes.