Search

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement offers a less-invasive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. Limited experience exists in intermediate-risk patients. We aim to evaluate 1-year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 mitral valve-in-valve study. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled symptomatic patients with a failing mitral bioprosthesis demonstrating greater than or equal to moderate stenosis and regurgitation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ≥3% and <8%. A balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) was used via a transeptal approach. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients from 12 sites underwent mitral valve-in-valve from 2018 to 2021. The mean age was 70.1±9.7 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1%±1.6%, and 54% were female. There were no primary end point events (mortality or stroke) through 1 year, and no left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction, endocarditis, or mitral valve reintervention was reported. Six patients (12%) required rehospitalization, including heart failure (n=2), minor procedural side effects (n=2), and valve thrombosis (n=2; both resolved with anticoagulation). An additional valve thrombosis was associated with no significant clinical sequelae. From baseline to 1 year, all subjects with available data had none/trace or mild (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation and the New York Heart Association class improved in 87.2% (41/47) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve-in-valve with a balloon-expandable valve via transseptal approach in intermediate-risk patients was associated with improved symptoms and quality of life, adequate transcatheter valve performance, and no mortality or stroke at 1-year follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis is frequently detected after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement due to advances in cardiac computed tomography angiography technology and standardized surveillance protocols in low-surgical-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. However, evidence is limited concerning whether subclinical leaflet thrombosis leads to clinical adverse events or premature structural valve deterioration. Furthermore, there may be net harm in the form of bleeding from aggressive antithrombotic treatment in patients with subclinical leaflet thrombosis. This review will discuss the incidence, mechanisms, diagnosis, and optimal management of bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Days at home (DAH) represents an important patient-oriented outcome that quantifies time spent at home after a medical event; however, this outcome has not been fully evaluated for low-surgical-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to compare 1- and 2-year DAH (DAH365 and DAH730) among low-risk patients participating in a randomized trial of TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: Using Medicare-linked data from the Evolut Low Risk trial, we identified 619 patients: 606 (322 TAVR/284 SAVR) and 593 (312 TAVR/281 SAVR) were analyzed at 1 and 2 years, respectively. DAH was calculated as days alive and spent outside a hospital, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, long-term acute care hospital, emergency department, or observation stay. Mean DAH was compared using the t test. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age and female sex were 74.7 (5.1) and 74.3 (4.9) years and 34.6% (115/332) and 30.3% (87/287) in TAVR and SAVR, respectively. Postprocedural discharge to rehabilitation occurred in ≤3.0% (≤10/332) in TAVR and 4.5% (13/287) in SAVR. The mean DAH365 was comparable in TAVR versus SAVR (352.2±45.4 versus 347.8±39.0; difference in days, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.3--11.2]; P=0.20). DAH730 was also comparable in TAVR versus SAVR (701.6±106.0 versus 699.6±94.5; difference in days, 2.0 [14.1 to 18.2]; P=0.81). Secondary outcomes DAH30 and DAH90 were higher in TAVR (DAH30, 26.0±3.6 versus 20.7±6.4; difference in days, 5.3 [4.5--6.2]; P<0.001; DAH90, 85.1±8.3 versus 78.7±13.6; difference in days, 6.4 [4.6--8.2]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the Evolut Low Risk trial linked to Medicare, low-risk patients undergoing TAVR spend a similar number of days at home at 1 and 2 years compared with SAVR. Days spent at home at 30 and 90 days were higher in TAVR. In contrast to higher-risk patients studied in prior work, there is no clear advantage of TAVR versus SAVR for DAH in the first 2 years after AVR in low-surgical-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed in younger and lower surgical risk patients. Reintervention for failed transcatheter heart valves will likely increase in the future as younger patients are expected to outlive the initial bioprosthesis. While redo-TAVR has emerged as an attractive and less invasive alternative to surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) to treat transcatheter heart valve failure, it may not be feasible in all patients due to the risk of coronary obstruction and impaired coronary access. Conversely, TAVR-explant can be offered to most patients who are surgical candidates, but the reported outcomes have shown high mortality and morbidity. This review provides the latest evidence, current challenges, and future directions on redo-TAVR and TAVR-explant for transcatheter heart valve failure, to guide aortic valve reintervention and facilitate patients' lifetime management of aortic stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In the SCOPE I trial (Safety and Efficacy of the Symetis ACURATE Neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis), transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo (NEO) did not meet noninferiority compared with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) device regarding a composite end point at 30 days due to higher rates of prosthetic valve regurgitation and acute kidney injury. Data on long-term durability of NEO are scarce. Here, we report whether early differences between NEO and S3 translate into differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure 3 years after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis were randomized to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with NEO or S3 at 20 European centers. Clinical outcomes at 3 years are compared using Cox proportional or Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models by intention-to-treat. Bioprosthetic valve failure is reported for the valve-implant cohort. RESULTS: Among 739 patients, 84 of 372 patients (24.3%) had died in the NEO and 85 of 367 (25%) in the S3 group at 3 years. Comparing NEO with S3, the 3-year rates of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.73–1.33]), stroke (subhazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.56–1.92]), and hospitalization for congestive heart failure (subhazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.51–1.07]) were similar between the groups. Aortic valve reinterventions were required in 4 NEO and 3 S3 patients (subhazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 0.30–5.85]). New York Heart Association functional class ≤II was observed in 84% (NEO) and 85% (S3), respectively. Mean gradients remained lower after NEO at 3 years (8 versus 12 mm Hg; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early differences between NEO and S3 did not translate into significant differences in clinical outcomes or bioprosthetic valve failure throughout 3 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis, but data are limited on younger, low-risk patients. This analysis compares outcomes in low-surgical-risk patients aged <75 years receiving TAVR versus surgery., Methods: The Evolut Low Risk Trial randomized 1414 low-risk patients to treatment with a supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR or surgery. We compared rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR and surgery patients aged <75 years., Results: In patients <75 years, 352 were randomized to TAVR and 351 to surgery. Mean age was 69.1±4.0 years (minimum 51 and maximum 74); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 1.7±0.6%. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or disabling stroke for TAVR was 5.7% and 8.0% for surgery ( P =0.241). Although there was no difference between TAVR and surgery in all-cause mortality, the incidence of disabling stroke was lower with TAVR (0.6%) than surgery (2.9%; P =0.019), while surgery was associated with a lower incidence of pacemaker implantation (7.1%) compared with TAVR (21.0%; P <0.001). Valve reintervention rates (TAVR 1.5%, surgery 1.5%, P =0.962) were low in both groups. Valve performance was significantly better with TAVR than surgery with lower mean aortic gradients ( P <0.001) and lower rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch ( P <0.001). Rates of valve thrombosis and endocarditis were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of residual ≥moderate paravalvular regurgitation., Conclusions: Low-risk patients <75 years treated with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR had comparable 3-year all-cause mortality and lower disabling stroke compared with patients treated with surgery. There was significantly better valve performance in patients treated with TAVR., Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283., Competing Interests: Dr Modine is a consultant and Senior Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr Tchétché is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Van Mieghem receives grants from Medtronic during the conduct of the trial and grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Dr Chetcuti receives personal fees from Medtronic; grants from Edwards, Boston Scientific, and Jena (paid to institution) during conduct of trial; and on an advisory board for Biotrace and Jena valve without remuneration. Dr Yakubov receives grants from Boston Scientific and Medtronic (paid to institution) and personal fees from Medtronic during the conduct of the trial. Dr Sorajja is a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Gada receives personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Becton Dickenson, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Mumtaz is a consultant and has received honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Edwards, Atricure, Teleflex, Foldax, Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development, and Abbott. Dr Ramlawi receives grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medtronic, Liva Nova, and AtriCure. Dr Bajwa is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Teirstein receives research grant and honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cordis, and Medtronic, and serves on an advisory board for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Kleiman receives clinical trial reimbursement to his institution (Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center) during the conduct of the trial. Dr Bagur serves as a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Chu receives Speakers’ honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo Aortic and Artivion. Dr Huang is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc. Dr Popma is a full-time employee and shareholder for Medtronic. Dr Forrest receives grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/Speakers Bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Reardon receives grants from Medtronic (paid to institution) during conduct of trial, and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Gore Medical (paid to institution) outside of the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts.

Purpose: To study the outcome of eyes that underwent surgery for keratoprosthesis with a biological haptic, osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP) or tibia keratoprosthesis, by a single surgeon over a time span of more than 25 years., Methods: One hundred thirty eyes that had received a keratoprosthesis with a biological haptic between 1994 and 2022 by a single surgeon were included in this retrospective analysis. Main outcome parameters were postoperative best corrected visual acuity, postoperative refractive error, postoperative complications, anatomical and functional survival of the prosthesis as well as comparison of subgroups of the 2 different types (OOKP n = 78; tibia keratoprosthesis n = 52) of keratoprostheses, and subgroup analysis of different indications for surgery. Patients were examined every 6 months., Results: The longest follow-up was 25.8 years. Reasons for implantation were graft-vs-host disease (6.9%), vascularized corneas and dry eye (22.9%), physical or chemical burns (29.8%), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (9.9%), and ocular cicatricial pemphigoid (30.5%). The functional success rate with postoperative visual acuity of better than 0.7 log MAR was achieved by 56.9%. The OOKP subgroup showed a better mean visual outcome. 14 keratoprostheses (10.7%) had to be explanted over the whole time span. In the time leading to explantation, refraction showed a statistically significant myopic shift when compared with the non-explanted prosthesis. Anatomical survival rates were better for the OOKP in the first 12 years after implantation., Conclusions: The study shows that keratoprosthesis with a biological haptic has favorable long-term outcomes. The retention rate stayed very high with excellent functional outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Dr Chhatriwalla: consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, Inc; research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Allen: general disclosures are Abbott, Medtronic, and Edwards; institutional research support, proctoring, and speakers bureau with all payments to the institution and none personally. Dr Saxon: Proctor and consulting support for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic, Inc. Dr Huded: consulting at Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Makkar: research grants from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; consultant at Cordis and Medtronic; employee at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr Jilaihawi: grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Inc, and Pi-Cardia; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, Inc. Dr Greenbaum: honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Babaliaros: equity in Transmural Systems; consultant at Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Whisenant: consultant at Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Yakubov: proctor at Medtronic, Inc; advisory board at Medtronic, Inc, and Boston Scientific. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Elevated aortic valve gradients are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated surgical aortic valve replacement bioprostheses, but their clinical impact is uncertain., Methods: A total of 12 122 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement from November 2011 to December 2019 in the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transvalvular Therapeutics Registry were included. The primary outcome was a composite of 1-year all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or valve reintervention. Secondary outcomes included 1-year all-cause mortality, readmission, and change from baseline 12-question self-administered Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Overall Summary Score. Due to nonlinearity observed with restricted cubic splines analysis, a Cox regression analysis with aortic valve mean gradient modeled as a spline-continuous variable (with 20 mm Hg as a cutoff) was used to study the 1-year composite outcome and mortality., Results: The composite outcome occurred most frequently in patients with aortic valve mean gradient ≥30 and <10 mm Hg, as compared with those with 10 to 20 and 20 to 30 mm Hg ranges (unadjusted rates, 13.9%, 12.1%, 7.5%, and 6.5%, respectively; P =0.002). When the mean aortic valve gradient was ≥20 mm Hg, higher gradients were associated with greater risk of the 1-year composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.02-1.03] per mm Hg; P <0.001) and 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [1.00-1.03] per mm Hg; P =0.007). Whereas when the mean aortic valve gradient was <20 mm Hg, higher gradients were not significantly associated with the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99 [0.98-1.003] per mm Hg; P =0.12) but were associated with lower 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98 [0.97-0.99] per mm Hg; P =0.007)., Conclusions: The relationship between postprocedural aortic valve mean gradient after transcatheter aortic valve implantation-in-surgical aortic valve replacement and clinical outcomes is complex and nonlinear, with relatively greater adverse events occurring at low and high gradient extremes. Further study of factors mediating the relationship between postprocedural gradients and clinical outcomes, including low-flow states, is necessary., Competing Interests: Dr Kleiman served as investigator and part of steering and screening committees for Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards, and Boston Scientific. Will be serving on the Transvalvular Steering Therapeutic Steering committee beginning 2023. Dr Vemulapalli received grants from the American College of Cardiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, National Institutes of Health (RO1 and SBIR), Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, Food and Drug Administration. He has received consulting fees or honorariums from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and the American College of Physicians. Dr Kapadia received stock options for Anteris and Navigate.

Mitral transcatheter therapies represent the treatment of choice for all patients deemed unsuitable for cardiac surgery. So far, the largest clinical experience has been limited to percutaneous repair techniques. However, given the complexity and heterogeneity of mitral valve anatomy and pathology, transcatheter mitral valve implantation will widen the mitral valve therapies horizon, toward a patient-tailored approach. Current data about transcatheter mitral valve implantation is still limited and, although some data are promising, there are still some issues to be addressed. This review provides a comprehensive insight into the available devices and describes potential advantages and limitations of transcatheter mitral valve implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: An increased degree of aortic angulation (AA) represents a challenging feature for bioprosthesis positioning. Whether AA has an impact on procedural outcomes of contemporary self-expanding valves remains unsettled. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of AA on procedural outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with contemporary self-expanding valves. METHODS: The HORSE (Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-Expanding Valves) is an international, retrospective registry including 3862 consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either Evolut R/PRO (n=1959) or ACURATE neo (n=1903) devices. Patients undergoing Evolut R 34 mm implantation were excluded as no comparable prosthesis size for ACURATE neo is available. AA was evaluated with preprocedural computed tomography, and its impact on device success was evaluated. RESULTS: In the overall population, AA did not have any impact upon device success, also when adjusting for in-study outcome predictors (odds ratio for 1° increment, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.98-1.01], P=0.306). However, increased AA was associated with lower device success with use of the Evolut R/PRO valves (odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99]; P=0.004), but not the ACURATE neo valves (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.98-1.03], P=0.304). The best AA cutoff value predicting device success was 49° (47% of the study cohort). Among patients with AAâ¥49°, Evolut R/PRO valves were associated with lower device success as compared to the ACURATE neo valve (inverse probability weighting odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46-0.83]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Horizontal aorta, as defined by an AA, is a common feature among transcatheter aortic valve replacement candidates and predicts device failure of the Evolut R/PRO valves, but not of the ACURATE neo valve. AA may be an effect modifier of the association between self-expanding valve type and device success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, the durability of bioprostheses is still a matter of concern, and little is known about the management of degenerated TAV. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with a degenerated TAV treated by means of a second TAVR. METHODS: The TRANSIT is an international registry that included cases of degenerated TAVR from 28 centers. Among around 40 000 patients treated with TAVR in the participating centers, 172 underwent a second TAVR: 57 (33%) for a mainly stenotic degenerated TAV, 97 (56%) for a mainly regurgitant TAV, and 18 (11%) for a combined degeneration. Overall, the rate of New York Heart Association class III/IV at presentation was 73.5%. RESULTS: Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 device success rate was 79%, as a consequence of residual gradient (14%) or regurgitation (7%). At 1 month, the overall mortality rate was 2.9%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 3.6% and 7%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. At 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 10%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 7.6% and 5.8%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. No cases of valve thrombosis were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with a degenerated TAV may be safely and successfully treated by means of a second TAVR. This finding is of crucial importance for the adoption of the TAVR technology in a lower risk and younger population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Disclosures Drs Modine and Leroux: Proctor for Abbott Laboratories and Medtronic Inc, and consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days.Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group.Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary outcomes after surgical management of thoracic aortic disease have improved; however, the impact of sex-related differences is poorly understood.Methods: A total of 1653 patients (498 [30.1%] female) underwent thoracic aortic surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest between 2002 and 2017 in 10 institutions of the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death, stroke, and a modified Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite for mortality or major morbidity (stroke, renal failure, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, prolonged ventilation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of these outcomes.Results: Women were older (mean±SD, 66±13 years versus 61±13 years; P<0.001), with more hypertension and renal failure, but had less coronary disease, less previous cardiac surgery, and higher ejection fraction than men. Rates of aortic dissection were similar between women and men. Rates of hemiarch, and total arch repair were similar between the sexes; however, women underwent less aortic root reconstruction including aortic root replacement, Ross, or valve-sparing root operations (29% versus 45%; P<0.001). Men experienced longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, but similar durations of circulatory arrest, methods of cerebral perfusion, and nadir temperatures. Women experienced a higher rate of mortality (11% versus 7.4%; P=0.02), stroke (8.8% versus 5.5%; P=0.01), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite end point for mortality or major morbidity (31% versus 27%; P=0.04). On multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 1.81; P<0.001), stroke (odds ratio, 1.90; P<0.001), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite end point for mortality or major morbidity (odds ratio, 1.40; P<0.001).Conclusions: Women experience worse outcomes after thoracic aortic surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest. Further investigation is required to better delineate which measures may reduce sex-related outcome differences after complex aortic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates of death or stroke at 2 years. Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for intermediate-risk patients remains uncertain.Methods: Between 2011 and 2014, 3110 intermediate-risk AS patients were treated with TAVR or SAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 2). A total of 2032 patients were randomized to receive TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) or SAVR in the PARTNER 2A trial, whereas the PARTNER S3i registry included an additional 1078 patients treated with TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR), which offers a lower delivery profile and sealing skirt designed to reduce paravalvular regurgitation compared with XT-TAVR. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization. Other in-trial costs were assessed by linkage of trial data with Medicare claims (n=2333) or by linear regression models for unlinked patients (n=682). Health utilities were estimated using the EQ-5D at baseline and 1, 12, and 24 months. Using a Markov model informed by in-trial costs, utilities, and survival data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US healthcare system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.Results: Although procedural costs were ≈$20 000 higher with TAVR than SAVR, total cost differences for the index hospitalization were only $2888 higher with XT-TAVR ( P=0.014) and were $4155 lower with S3-TAVR ( P<0.001) owing to reductions in length of stay with TAVR. Follow-up costs were significantly lower with XT-TAVR (Δ=-$9304; P<0.001) and S3-TAVR (Δ=-$11 377; P<0.001) than with SAVR. Over a lifetime horizon, TAVR was projected to lower total costs by $8000 to $10 000 and to increase quality-adjusted survival by 0.15 to 0.27 years. XT-TAVR and S3-TAVR were found to be economically dominant compared with SAVR in 84% and 97% of bootstrap replicates, respectively.Conclusions: Among intermediate-risk AS patients, TAVR is projected to be economically dominant from the perspective of the US healthcare system by providing both greater quality-adjusted life expectancy and lower long-term costs than SAVR. If long-term data demonstrate comparable late mortality with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR might be the preferred treatment strategy for intermediate-risk AS patients based on both clinical and economic considerations.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01314313. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: aortic valve; bioprosthesis; transcatheter aortic valve replacement EN aortic valve bioprosthesis transcatheter aortic valve replacement 1267 1269 3 04/15/21 20210323 NES 210323 SCOPE I (Safety and Efficacy of the Symetis ACURATE neo/TF Compared to the Edwards SAPIEN 3 Bioprosthesis) is an investigator-initiated randomized clinical trial comparing the self-expanding Acurate neo (NEO) with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 (S3) bioprosthesis in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial. [Extracted from the article]

DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050499 December 8, 2020 2285 Key Words: aortic valve stenosis heart diseases thoracic surgery T ranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis. 1,2 TAVR use has increased greatly, but the clinical impact and outcomes of surgical TAVR valve explantation and SAVR (TAVR explant) are not well understood. TAVR explant was defined as a non- same-day surgical TAVR valve explant with SAVR performed in patients who had undergone TAVR. [Extracted from the article]

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Mack is a Trial Co-Principal Investigator (PI) for Abbott and Edwards Life Sciences and serves as a Trial Study Chair for Medtronic, all uncompensated. Dr Szerlip is a Proctor, Speaker, and Consultant for Edwards LifeSciences; Advisory Board Member, Consultant, and Proctor for Abbott Vascular; member of Steering Committee for Medtronic; and is a Speaker and Consultant for Boston Scientific. The other authors report no conflicts.

Tissue-engineered heart valve (TEHV) is a promising alternative to current heart valve substitute. Decellularized porcine aortic heart valves (DAVs) are the most common scaffolds of TEHV. Hard to endothelialization is one of the disadvantages of DAVs. Therefore, we aimed to immobilize endothelial progenitor cell (EPC)-aptamer onto DAVs for accelerating endothelialization. In this study, three groups of scaffolds were constructed: DAVs, aptamer-immobilized DAVs (aptamer-DAVs), and glutaraldehyde crosslinked DAVs (GA-DAVs). The results of flow cytometry revealed that EPC-aptamer was specific to EPCs and was immobilized onto DAVs. Cells adhesion experiments demonstrated that EPCs adhered more tightly onto aptamer-DAVs group than other two groups of scaffolds. And cell proliferation assay indicated that EPCs seeded onto aptamer-DAVs group grew faster than DAVs group and GA-DAVs group. Moreover, dynamic capture experiment in flow conditions revealed that the number of EPCs captured by aptamer-DAVs group was more than other two groups. In conclusion, aptamer-DAVs could specifically promote adhesion and proliferation of EPCs and had ability to capture EPCs in simulated flow condition. This could promote re-endothelialization of scaffolds., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © ASAIO 2023.)

The estimated prevalence of mitral or aortic valvular heart disease is ≈2.5% in the general population of Western countries, and is expected to rise with population aging. A substantial proportion of patients with valvular heart disease undergoes surgical valve replacement. Mechanical heart valves are much more durable than bioprostheses, and are thus preferentially implanted in patients with a longer life expectancy, but have the major drawback of requiring lifelong anticoagulation to prevent valve thrombosis because of their higher thrombogenicity. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are replacing vitamin K antagonists in many settings, including bioprostheses, because of their favorable safety and efficacy profiles. However, mechanical heart valves currently pose an absolute contraindication to NOACs based on the results of a single phase II study comparing dabigatran and warfarin (RE-ALIGN [Randomized, Phase II Study to Evaluate the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Oral Dabigatran Etexilate in Patients after Heart Valve Replacement]). That trial was stopped prematurely because of an excess of both stroke and bleeding with the dabigatran doses tested. Because of such negative findings, research in this area has been halted. We believe that several aspects of both the preclinical studies and the RE-ALIGN trial should be critically reevaluated. In our opinion, 1 single trial with a single NOAC does not represent sufficient evidence for dismissing a therapeutic strategy, anticoagulation with NOACs, that has shown better safety and at least similar efficacy as warfarin in the setting of atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism,. Herein, we reevaluate this topic to identify the patient profile that has the greatest likelihood of benefit from some of the NOACs, with a focus on factor Xa inhibitors, thus providing some perspectives for basic and translational research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of structural valve deterioration after bioprosthesis (BP) aortic valve replacement (AVR) established on the basis of reoperation may substantially underestimate the true incidence. The objective is to determine the rate, timing, correlates, and association between hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) and outcomes assessed by Doppler echocardiography after surgical BP AVR.Methods: A total of 1387 patients (62.2% male, 70.5±7.8 years of age) who underwent BP AVR were included in this retrospective study. Baseline echocardiography was performed at a median time of 4.1 (1.3-6.5) months after AVR. All patients had an echocardiographic follow-up ≥2 years after AVR (926 at least 5 years and 385 at least 10 years). HVD was defined by Doppler assessment as a ≥10 mm Hg increase in mean gradient or worsening of transprosthetic regurgitation ≥1/3 class. HVD was classified according to the timing after AVR: "very early," during the first 2-years; "early," between 2 and 5 years; "midterm," between 5 and 10 years; and "long-term," >10 years.Results: A total of 428 patients (30.9%) developed HVD. Among these patients, 52 (12.0%) were classified as "very early," 129 (30.1%) as "early," 158 (36.9%) as "midterm," and 89 (20.8%) as "long-term" HVD. Factors independently associated with HVD occurring within the first 5 years after AVR were diabetes mellitus ( P=0.01), active smoking ( P=0.01), renal insufficiency ( P=0.01), baseline postoperative mean gradient ≥15 mm Hg ( P=0.04) or transprosthetic regurgitation ≥mild ( P=0.04), and type of BP (stented versus stentless, P=0.003). Factors associated with HVD occurring after the fifth year after AVR were female sex ( P=0.03), warfarin use ( P=0.007), and BP type ( P<0.001). HVD was independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.86-2.57; P<0.001).Conclusions: HVD as identified by Doppler echocardiography occurred in one third of patients and was associated with a 2.2-fold higher adjusted mortality. Diabetes mellitus and renal insufficiency were associated with early HVD, whereas female sex, warfarin use, and stented BPs (versus stentless) were associated with late HVD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: The SOURCE 3 Registry (SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) is a European multicenter, observational registry of the latest generation of transcatheter heart valve, the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Its purpose is to document outcomes of clinical safety and performance after European approval was given. Methods: Here, we present the 30-day outcome of the SOURCE 3 Registry. All data are self-reported, and all participating centers have committed to support their consecutive experience with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve, dependent on patient consent, before the start of the study. Adverse events are defined with Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Results: A total of 1950 patients from 80 centers in 10 countries were enrolled between July 2014 and October 2015. Of those, 1947 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 (mean age, 81.6±6.6 years; 48.1% female). Main comorbidities included coronary artery disease (51.5%), renal insufficiency (27.4%), diabetes mellitus (29.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16.0%), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.3±13.2. Transfemoral access was used in 87.1% (n=1695); nontransfemoral, in 252 patients. Conscious sedation was used in 59.9% of transfemoral procedures, and in 50% of patients, TAVI was performed without aortic balloon valvuloplasty. Implantation success (1 valve in the intended location) was 98.3%. Conversion to conventional surgery (0.6%) and use of cardiopulmonary bypass (0.7%) were rare. Adverse events were low, with site-reported 30-day all-cause mortality of 2.2%, cardiovascular mortality of 1.1%, stroke of 1.4%, major vascular complications of 4.1%, life-threatening bleeding of 5%, and post-TAVI pacemaker implantation of 12%. Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation was observed in 3.1% of reporting patients. Conclusions: Results from the SOURCE 3 Registry demonstrate contemporary European trends and good outcomes of TAVI in daily practice when this third-generation TAVI device is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation requiring mitral valve replacement (MVR), the choice of the prosthesis type is crucial. The exercise hemodynamic and functional capacity performance in patients with contemporary prostheses have never been investigated. To compare exercise hemodynamic and functional capacity between biological (MVRb) and mechanical (MVRm) prostheses. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 86 consecutive patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation who underwent MVRb (n=41) or MVRm (n=45) and coronary artery bypass grafting. All patients underwent preoperative resting echocardiography and 6-minute walking test. At follow-up, exercise stress echocardiography was performed, and the 6-minute walking test was repeated. Resting and exercise indexed effective orifice areas of MVRm were larger when compared with MVRb (resting: 1.30±0.2 versus 1.19±0.3 cm2/m2; P=0.03; exercise: 1.57±0.2 versus 1.18±0.3 cm2/m2; P=0.0001). The MVRm had lower exercise systolic pulmonary arterial pressure at follow-up compared with MVRb (41±5 versus 59±7 mm Hg; P=0.0001). Six-minute walking test distance was improved in the MVRm (pre-operative: 242±43, post-operative: 290±50 m; P=0.001), whereas it remained similar in the MVRb (pre-operative: 250±40, post-operative: 220±44 m; P=0.13). In multivariable analysis, type of prosthesis, exercise indexed effective orifice area, and systolic pulmonary arterial pressure were joint predictors of change in 6-minute walking test (ie, difference between baseline and follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation, bioprostheses are associated with worse hemodynamic performance and reduced functional capacity, when compared with MVRm. Randomized studies with longer follow-up including quality of life and survival data are required to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Outcomes of TMVR versus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) have not been investigated for this population. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with secondary MR undergoing TMVR versus GDMT alone. Methods: The CHOICE-MI registry (Choice of Optimal Transcatheter Treatment for Mitral Insufficiency) included patients with MR undergoing TMVR using dedicated devices. Patients with MR pathogeneses other than secondary MR were excluded. Patients treated with GDMT alone were derived from the control arm of the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation). We compared outcomes between the TMVR and GDMT groups, using propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences. Results: After propensity score matching, 97 patient pairs undergoing TMVR (72.9±8.7 years; 60.8% men; transapical access, 91.8%) versus GDMT (73.1±11.0 years; 59.8% men) were compared. At 1 and 2 years, residual MR was ≤1+ in all patients of the TMVR group compared with 6.9% and 7.7%, respectively, in those receiving GDMT alone (both P <0.001). The 2-year rate of heart failure hospitalization was significantly lower in the TMVR group (32.8% versus 54.4%; hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.35–0.99]; P =0.04). Among survivors, a higher proportion of patients were in the New York Heart Association functional class I or II in the TMVR group at 1 year (78.2% versus 59.7%; P =0.03) and at 2 years (77.8% versus 53.2%; P =0.09). Two-year mortality was similar in the 2 groups (TMVR versus GDMT, 36.8% versus 40.8%; hazard ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.62–1.64]; P =0.98). Conclusions: In this observational comparison, over 2-year follow-up, TMVR using mostly transapical devices in patients with secondary MR was associated with significant reduction of MR, symptomatic improvement, less frequent hospitalizations for heart failure, and similar mortality compared with GDMT. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04688190 (CHOICE-MI) and NCT01626079 (COAPT). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be less effective in small surgical valves because of patient/prosthesis mismatch. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) using a high-pressure balloon can be performed to facilitate VIV TAVR. Methods and Results--We report data from 20 consecutive clinical cases in which BVF was successfully performed before or after VIV TAVR by inflation of a high-pressure balloon positioned across the valve ring during rapid ventricular pacing. Hemodynamic measurements and calculation of the valve effective orifice area were performed at baseline, immediately after VIV TAVR, and after BVF. BVF was successfully performed in 20 patients undergoing VIV TAVR with balloon- expandable (n=8) or self-expanding (n=12) transcatheter valves in Mitroflow, Carpentier-Edwards Perimount, Magna and Magna Ease, Biocor Epic and Biocor Epic Supra, and Mosaic surgical valves. Successful fracture was noted fluoroscopically when the waist of the balloon released and by a sudden drop in inflation pressure, often accompanied by an audible snap. BVF resulted in a reduction in the mean transvalvular gradient (from 20.5±7.4 to 6.7±3.7 mm Hg, P<0.001) and an increase in valve effective orifice area (from 1.0±0.4 to 1.8±0.6 cm², P<0.001). No procedural complications were reported. Conclusions--BVF can be performed safely in small surgical valves to facilitate VIV TAVR with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding transcatheter valves and results in reduced residual transvalvular gradients and increased valve effective orifice area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background—With improved survival of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR),reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic stenosis (PAS) is increasing. Timing of redo surgery in asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic patients remains controversial. Left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a marker of subclinical LV dysfunction. In asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic patients with severe PAS undergoing redo AVR, we sought to determine whether LV-GLS provides incremental prognostic use. Methods and Results—We studied 191 patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS (63±16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, severe other valve disease transcatheter AVR, and LV ejection fraction <50%). Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was calculated. Standard echocardiography data were obtained. LV-GLS was measured on 2-, 3-, and 4-chamber views using velocity vector imaging. Severe PAS was defined as aortic valve area <0.8 cm², mean aortic valve gradient ≥40 mm Hg, and dimensionless index <0.25. A composite outcome of death and congestive heart failure admission was recorded. At baseline, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, LV ejection fraction, mean aortic valve gradients, and right ventricular systolic pressure were 7±6, 58±6%, 54±10 mm Hg and 40±14 mm Hg, whereas 50% had >2+ aortic regurgitation. Median LV-GLS was -14.2% (-11.4, -17.1%). At 4.2±3 years, 41 (22%) patients met the composite end point (2.5% deaths and 1% strokes at 30 days postoperatively). On multivariable Cox survival analysis, LV-GLS was independently associated with longer-term composite events (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.10–1.33), P<0.01. The C statistic for the clinical model (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, degree of aortic regurgitation, and right ventricular systolic pressure) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.54–0.79), P<0.001. Addition of LV-GLS to the clinical model increased the C statistic significantly to 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.58–0.81), P<0.001. Conclusions—In asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, baseline LV-GLS provides incremental prognostic use over established predictors and could potentially aid in surgical timing and risk stratification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis have been reported with both transcatheter and surgical aortic valve bioprostheses. The relationships between these abnormalities and their incidence, time course, clinical significance, predisposing factors, optimal imaging modality, and current therapeutic options remain uncertain but are rapidly evolving. Four-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging has been determined to have the highest sensitivity in studies evaluating leaflet immobility and valve thrombosis. Echocardiography is also used during surveillance, but it appears to be less sensitive. The definitive diagnosis of valve thrombosis is based on a combination of diagnostic 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging findings, resolution of imaging abnormalities, and elevated transcatheter gradients with anticoagulation or surgical or pathological confirmation. Uncertainty about the incidence and clinical significance of the findings is the basis of 2 US Food and Drug Administration-approved studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing surveillance 4-dimensional computerized tomographic imaging. Given the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve procedures, including potentially lower-risk patients, the resolution of these uncertainties is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV). Methods and Results--Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with selfexpanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico- (n=54) and CoreValve- (n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79±8.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1±5.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm2;P=0.001), lower mean gradient (14±7.5 versus 17±7.5 mm Hg; P=0.02), and lower core laboratory-adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P=0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P=0.03). Conclusions--In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SOURCE 3 Registry (SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) is a European multicenter, observational registry of the latest generation of transcatheter heart valve, the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Its purpose is to document outcomes of clinical safety and performance after European approval was given.Methods: Here, we present the 30-day outcome of the SOURCE 3 Registry. All data are self-reported, and all participating centers have committed to support their consecutive experience with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve, dependent on patient consent, before the start of the study. Adverse events are defined with Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee.Results: A total of 1950 patients from 80 centers in 10 countries were enrolled between July 2014 and October 2015. Of those, 1947 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 (mean age, 81.6±6.6 years; 48.1% female). Main comorbidities included coronary artery disease (51.5%), renal insufficiency (27.4%), diabetes mellitus (29.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16.0%), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.3±13.2. Transfemoral access was used in 87.1% (n=1695); nontransfemoral, in 252 patients. Conscious sedation was used in 59.9% of transfemoral procedures, and in 50% of patients, TAVI was performed without aortic balloon valvuloplasty. Implantation success (1 valve in the intended location) was 98.3%. Conversion to conventional surgery (0.6%) and use of cardiopulmonary bypass (0.7%) were rare. Adverse events were low, with site-reported 30-day all-cause mortality of 2.2%, cardiovascular mortality of 1.1%, stroke of 1.4%, major vascular complications of 4.1%, life-threatening bleeding of 5%, and post-TAVI pacemaker implantation of 12%. Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation was observed in 3.1% of reporting patients.Conclusions: Results from the SOURCE 3 Registry demonstrate contemporary European trends and good outcomes of TAVI in daily practice when this third-generation TAVI device is used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is approved for treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis across the spectrum of risk. While considering broader indications for use, transcatheter aortic valve replacement in large native annuli has become increasingly important. Methods: Patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO+ 34 mm valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between October 2016 and September 2020 were stratified according to in range (>12%) device oversizing and below range (0%–12%) device oversizing. Patients undergoing valve-in-valve procedures, having a baseline annulus size <26 or ≥34 mm, or without computed tomography angiography measured annulus size were excluded. Percentage of oversizing was calculated as [(valve diameter−annulus diameter)×100/annulus diameter]. Results: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with large annuli was performed in 8017 patients with a mean (±SD) age 79.3±7.9 years and 94% were male. Below range (n=1096) was less common than in range oversizing (n=6921). At 1-year follow-up, mortality (19.6% versus 14.9%; P =0.001), aortic valve reintervention (2.1% versus 0.6%; P <0.001) and valve-related readmission rates (3.2% versus 2.0%; P =0.014) were higher in the below range device oversizing group versus in range group respectively. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model, when controlling for clinically relevant covariates, below range device oversizing was associated with higher 1-year all-cause mortality (HR, 1.28 [CI, 1.07–1.51]; P =0.005). Conclusions: Results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry in patients with large annuli valves using 34mm Evolut R/PRO+ valves suggest that in range (>12%) device oversizing delivered better clinical outcomes than implantation with below range (0%–12%) device oversizing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We describe long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in the largest single-centre cohort of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) bioprosthesis., Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2021, 1157 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Mean age was 77 ± 6 years (range: 46-89 years) and mean EuroSCORE II was 6.7 ± 3.2% (range: 1.7-14.2%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 266 patients (23%)., Results: Thirty-day mortality was 1.38% (16/1157). Eight hundred and twenty of 891 (92%) isolated AVRs underwent minimally invasive surgery with a ministernotomy ( n  = 196) or right minithoracotomy ( n  = 624) approach. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 81.1 ± 24.3 and 50.6 ± 11.7 min for isolated AVR and 144.5 ± 34.7 and 96.4 ± 21.6 min for combined procedures. At mean follow-up of 53.08 ± 6.7 months (range: 1-120.5 months), survival was 96.5% and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 13.7 ± 5.8 mmHg. Left ventricular mass decreased from 152.8 to 116.1 g/m 2 ( P  < 0.001) and moderate paravalvular leakage occurred in three patients without haemolysis not requiring any treatment. Freedom from reoperation was 97.6%. Eight patients required surgical reintervention and 19 patients transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure for structural prosthesis degeneration at a mean of 5.6 years after first operation (range: 2-9 years)., Conclusion: AVR with a Perceval bioprosthesis is associated with good clinical results and excellent haemodynamic performance in our 10-year experience. Structural degeneration rate of Perceval is comparable with other bioprosthetic aortic valves. Sutureless technology may reduce operative time especially in combined procedures and enable minimally invasive AVR., (Copyright © 2023 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

The article highlights a study on replacement of aortic valve with bovine pericardial tissue valve in children and young adults. It mentions echocardiograms on patients with implanted bovine pericardial tissue aortic valves, including the Magna/Magna Ease (M/ME) where reasons for explant of M/ME valves were endocarditis and increasing left ventricular outflow/valve gradient. It mentions the importance of systematic surveillance and technological advancement to reduce leaflet calcification.

The article focuses on performing bioprosthetic aortic valve implantation to replace a failing valve resulting from stenosis or regurgitation and is a cure for valvular heart disease. It states that the clinical presentation of structural valve deterioration (SVD) may vary and can range from asymptomatic elevation of the valve gradient to heart failure or possible sudden cardiac death. The growing technology of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is discussed.

Background: In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves. Methods: This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. Results: In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1–4, 4.1% [2.8–6.3%], 3.7% [2.6–5.3%], 3.3% [2.4–4.9%], 2.9% [2.2–4.3%]; P <0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1–4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P =0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1–4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and early safety (Q1–4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1–4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P =0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1–4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P <0.001). Conclusions: TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Knowledge regarding the use of xenografts in cutaneous surgery is limited. OBJECTIVE We sought to better understand the utility, outcomes, and complications of porcine xenograft applications in cutaneous surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS A single center, retrospective study of patients with porcine xenograft applications was completed. Characteristics of tumors, surgical procedures, resulting wound beds, follow-up care, and final length of follow-up were determined, and statistical analysis was conducted. RESULTS Of 225 porcine xenograft placements in 220 patients, the majority of tumors were nonmelanoma skin cancers (89%) and similarly divided between the head (excepting nose/ear), nose, ear, and extremities. Both Mohs and standard excision resulted in a 5.7 cm2 mean area of surgical defect, with the majority closed by porcine xenograft only (84.1%), and healing by secondary intention (97.3%). The area of surgical defect and topical antibiotics contributed to increased length of time to final follow-up. CONCLUSION The data represent the largest series of biologic dressings in cutaneous surgery and demonstrate the applicability and safety of porcine xenografts. We recommend consideration of porcine xenografts in the appropriate clinical context, to augment secondary intention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize all-comers with severe native aortic valve stenosis to either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk patient population than previous trials. This article reports 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the NOTION trial. Methods and Results--Two-hundred eighty patients from 3 centers in Denmark and Sweden were randomized to either TAVR (n=145) or SAVR (n=135) with follow-up planned for 5 years. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 2 years between TAVR and SAVR (8.0% versus 9.8%, respectively; P=0.54) or cardiovascular mortality (6.5% versus 9.1%; P=0.40). The composite outcome of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was also similar (15.8% versus 18.8%, P=0.43). Forward-flow hemodynamics were improved following both procedures, with effective orifice area significantly more improved after TAVR than SAVR (effective orifice area, 1.7 versus 1.4 cm2 at 3 months). Mean valve gradients were similar after TAVR and SAVR. When patients were categorized according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) (<4% versus ≥4%), there was no statistically significant difference for TAVR and SAVR groups in the composite outcome for low-risk (14.7%, 95% confidence interval, 8.3-21.2 versus 16.8%; 95% confidence interval, 9.7-23.8; P=0.58) or intermediate-risk patients (21.1% versus 27.1%; P=0.59). Conclusions--Two-year results from the NOTION trial demonstrate the continuing safety and effectiveness of TAVR in lower-risk patients. Longer-term data are needed to verify the durability of this procedure in this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Transcatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may offer an advantage over reoperation. Supra-annular transcatheter valve position may be advantageous in achieving better hemodynamics after ViV. Our objective was to define targets for implantation that would improve hemodynamics after ViV. Methods and Results--Cases from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry were analyzed using centralized core laboratory assessment blinded to clinical events. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of elevated postprocedural gradients (mean ≥20 mm Hg). Optimal implantation depths were defined by receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 292 consecutive patients (age, 78.9±8.7 years; 60.3% male; 157 CoreValve Evolut and 135 Sapien XT) were evaluated. High implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of elevated gradients in comparison with low implantation (CoreValve Evolut, 15% versus 34.2%; P=0.03 and Sapien XT, 18.5% versus 43.5%; P=0.03, respectively). Optimal implantation depths were defined: CoreValve Evolut, 0 to 5 mm; Sapien XT, 0 to 2 mm (0-10% frame height); sensitivities, 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. The strongest independent correlate for elevated gradients after ViV was device position (high: odds ratio, 0.22; confidence interval, 0.1-0.52; P=0.001), in addition to type of device used (CoreValve Evolut: odds ratio, 0.5; confidence interval, 0.28-0.88; P=0.02) and surgical valve mechanism of failure (stenosis/mixed baseline failure: odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.51-6.45; P=0.002). Conclusions--High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate of lower postprocedural gradients in both self- and balloon-expandable transcatheter valves. These clinical evaluations support specific implantation targets to optimize hemodynamics after ViV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 29-year-old pregnant woman with one month history of progressive shortness of breath on exertion and chest discomfort. Her medical history revealed a surgical aortic valve replacement at the age of 24. It states that the case involved complex decision making with consideration of both maternal and fetal risks.

Background: The American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis. However, there remains great variability in the current clinical practice and conflicting results from clinical studies. To assist clinical decision making, we pooled the existing evidence to assess whether anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or greater risk of bleeding.Methods and Results: We searched the PubMed database from the inception of these databases until April 2015 to identify original studies (observational studies or clinical trials) that assessed anticoagulation with warfarin in comparison with either aspirin or no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. We included the studies if their outcomes included thromboembolism or stroke/transient ischemic attacks and bleeding events. Quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Newland Ottawa Scale, and random effects analysis was used to pool the data from the available studies. I(2) testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. After screening through 170 articles, a total of 13 studies (cases=6431; controls=18210) were included in the final analyses. The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.08; P<0.0001) or bleeding risk at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.34; P<0.0001) compared with aspirin or placebo. With regard to composite primary outcome variables (risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) at 3 months, no significant difference was seen with warfarin (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P=0.67). Moreover, anticoagulation was also not shown to improve outcomes at time interval >3 months (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.58; P=0.79).Conclusions: Contrary to the current guidelines, a meta-analysis of previous studies suggests that anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk without a favorable effect on thromboembolic events. Larger, randomized controlled studies should be performed to further guide this clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Off-label use of transcatheter aortic and pulmonary valve prostheses for tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation (TVIV) within dysfunctional surgical tricuspid valve (TV) bioprostheses has been described in small reports.Methods and Results: An international, multicenter registry was developed to collect data on TVIV cases. Patient-related factors, procedural details and outcomes, and follow-up data were analyzed. Valve-in-ring or heterotopic TV implantation procedures were not included. Data were collected on 156 patients with bioprosthetic TV dysfunction who underwent catheterization with planned TVIV. The median age was 40 years, and 71% of patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV. Among 152 patients in whom TVIV was attempted with a Melody (n=94) or Sapien (n=58) valve, implantation was successful in 150, with few serious complications. After TVIV, both the TV inflow gradient and tricuspid regurgitation grade improved significantly. During follow-up (median, 13.3 months), 22 patients died, 5 within 30 days; all 22 patients were in New York Heart Association class III or IV, and 9 were hospitalized before TVIV. There were 10 TV reinterventions, and 3 other patients had significant recurrent TV dysfunction. At follow-up, 77% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II (P<0.001 versus before TVIV). Outcomes did not differ according to surgical valve size or TVIV valve type.Conclusions: TVIV with commercially available transcatheter prostheses is technically and clinically successful in patients of various ages across a wide range of valve size. Although preimplantation clinical status was associated with outcome, many patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV at baseline improved. TVIV should be considered a viable option for treatment of failing TV bioprostheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the use of biological valves in younger population undergoing replacement of aortic valve. Topics mentioned include the efficiency and durability of biological valves, the life expectancy for patients undergoing replacement of aortic valve, and the safety measures in aortic valve replacement. Also mentioned are the bioprosthesis and the oral anticoagulant therapy.

Background: With improved event-free survival of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic stenosis (PAS) is increasing. We sought to (1) identify of the characteristics of patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, and (2) assess the outcomes of these patients, along with factors associated with adverse outcomes.Methods and Results: We studied 276 patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS (64±16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo-AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, severe other valve disease, and transcatheter AVR). Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was calculated. Severe PAS was defined as AV area <0.8 cm(2), mean AV gradient ≥40 mm Hg, or dimensionless index <0.25. A composite outcome of death and congestive heart failure admission was recorded. Mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and mean AV gradients were 8±8 and 53±17 mm Hg, whereas 28% had >II+ aortic regurgitation. Only 39% had an isolated redo AVR, the rest were combination surgeries (coronary bypass and/or aortic surgeries). At 4.2±3 years, 64 (23%) patients met the composite end point (48 deaths and 19 congestive heart failure admissions, 2.5% 30-day deaths). On multivariable Cox survival analysis, higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio, 1.35), higher grades of aortic regurgitation (hazard ratio, 1.29), and higher right ventricular systolic pressure (hazard ratio, 1.3) were associated with worse longer-term outcomes (all P<0.01).Conclusions: At an experienced center, in patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, the majority undergo combination surgeries but have excellent outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]