Search

Aims: A greater number of patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) may be identified and treated as indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are expected to expand to younger patients. We evaluated the contemporary frequency and management of symptomatic patients with stenotic BAV in a multicenter European registry., Methods: Between November 2017 and February 2018, all consecutive patients admitted for symptomatic aortic stenosis across six high-volume European hospitals were prospectively enrolled in the BiTri registry., Results: Of the 832 patients, 17% (n = 138) had a BAV. The most frequent BAV phenotypes were type 1 (left--right coronary cusps fusion 64%) and type 1 (right-noncoronary cusps fusion 17%). Type 0 and type 2 accounted for 12 and 2%, respectively. When compared with tricuspid patients (n = 694), BAV patients were younger, with lower surgical risk. The transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) identified BAV in 64% of patients. Multisliced computed tomography (MSCT) additionally completed the diagnosis in 20% of patients. Surgical inspection finally identified the remaining undiagnosed 16% of BAV. A combination of TTE and MSCT was the most common diagnosis method for BAV. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the predominant therapeutic option for BAV (70%) whilst TAVI was performed in 26%., Conclusion: BAV is frequently observed in symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis. These patients are younger, have a lower risk profile and are predominantly treated with SAVR as compared with tricuspid patients. However, TAVI is performed in almost one-third of BAV patients in contemporary European practice. TTE combined with MSCT identified 84% of BAV., (Copyright © 2020 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR., Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate., Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76-996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510-1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74-12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88-21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement., Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.

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.

Background: Sizing for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) remains controversial., Methods and Results: The aim of the BAVARD (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Anatomy and Relationship With Devices) retrospective registry is to capture the sizing ratios used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in BAV and analyze the second-generation prostheses geometry postimplantation. About 101 patients with BAV along with available pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation multidetector computed tomography were compared with 88 tricuspid aortic valves (TAV) patients. Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography diagnosed type 0 and type 1 BAV in, respectively, 12.9% and 86.1 % of BAV. At baseline, the ellipticity index was similar between BAV and TAV patients: 1.2±0.1 versus 1.2±0.1, P=0.09. The mean annular oversizing was, respectively, 1.14±0.04 and 1.04±0.04, P<0.001, in TAV and BAV patients. The mean prosthesis intercommissural distance, ratio was 1.03±0.1. The mean diameter of the prostheses at the annulus matched the mean perimeter-derived diameter of the aortic annulus at baseline with TAV (23.3±2.2 versus 23.6±1.9, P=0.4) and was smaller with BAV (24±2.8 versus 26.8±3.1, P<0.01), confirming 11% underexpansion in BAV. Finally, in situ, prosthesis diameter and ellipticity followed the same pattern, with stable values from the distal edge to 12 mm above, in both groups., Conclusions: Second-generation prostheses similarly reshape the aortic annulus in TAV and BAV. Prostheses keep consistent diameters from distal edge to 12 mm in TAV and BAV. Prosthesis underexpansion is constantly observed in BAV. Annular-based sizing is accurate in BAV with minimal oversizing. The intercommissural distance, 4 mm above the annulus, could be integrated in gray zones., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03495050.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being used for treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis in patients at intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, real-world data comparing indications and clinical outcomes of patients at intermediate surgical risk undergoing isolated TAVR with those undergoing SAVR are scarce., Methods: We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with intermediate surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) who underwent isolated TAVR or conventional SAVR within the prospective, all-comers German Aortic Valve Registry., Results: A total of 7613 patients at intermediate surgical risk underwent isolated TAVR (n=6469) or SAVR (n=1144) at 92 sites in Germany between 2012 and 2014. Patients treated by TAVR were significantly older (82.5±5.0 versus 76.6±6.7 years, P<0.001) and had higher risk scores (logistic EuroSCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation]: 21.2±12.3% versus 14.2±9.5%, P<0.001; Society of Thoracic Surgeons score: 5.6±1.1 versus 5.2±1.0, P<0.001). Multivariable analyses revealed that advanced age, coronary artery disease, New York Heart Association class III/IV, pulmonary hypertension, prior cardiac decompensation, elective procedure, arterial occlusive disease, no diabetes mellitus, and a smaller aortic valve area were associated with performing TAVR instead of SAVR (all P<0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were equal for TAVR and SAVR (3.6% versus 3.6%, P=0.976), whereas unadjusted 1-year mortality was significantly higher in patients after TAVR (17.5% versus 10.8%, P<0.001). After propensity score matching, the difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR was no longer significant (17.1% versus 15.7%, P=0.59)., Conclusions: Patients at intermediate risk undergoing TAVR differ significantly from those treated with SAVR with regard to age and baseline characteristics. Isolated TAVR and SAVR were associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 3.6%. In the propensity score analysis, there was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between patients with TAVR and SAVR.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valves can degenerate in a manner similar to surgical bioprostheses., Methods and Results: Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients who underwent redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures >2 weeks post procedure were collected from 14 centers. Among 13 876 patients, 50 (0.4%) underwent redo TAVR procedure at participating centers. Indications for redo TAVR were moderate-severe prosthetic aortic valve stenosis (n=10, 21.7%), moderate-severe central prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (n=13, 28.3%), and moderate-severe paraprosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (n=25, 50.0%). The index TAVR was most commonly a Medtronic CoreValve (N=38, 76.0%), followed by Edwards SAPIEN-type valves (n=12, 24.0%) and Portico (n=1, 2.0%). The redo TAVR device was most commonly a CoreValve/Evolut R (n=29, 58.0%), followed by a SAPIEN-type valve (n=20,40.0%) or a Boston Lotus valve (n=1, 2.0%). In 40 patients (80.0%), redo TAVR was performed using the identical device type or that of the succeeding generation. Valve performance was uniformly good after redo TAVR (mean transvalvular gradient post redo TAVR: 12.5±6.1 mm Hg). At hospital discharge, all patients remained alive, with 1 nondisabling stroke (2.0%) and 1 life-threatening bleed (2.0%). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required in 3 out of 35 patients without a prior pacemaker (8.6%). Late survival was 85.1% at a median follow-up of 1589 days (range: 31-3775) after index TAVR and 635 days (range: 8-2460) after redo TAVR., Conclusions: Redo TAVR for the treatment of postprocedural and late occurrence of paravalvular regurgitation and transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis failure seems to be safe, and it is associated with favorable acute and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a highly specialized technique offering a new therapeutic option to patients at high risk for conventional surgery. Complications associated with this catheter procedure differ from complications after surgical aortic valve replacement. This is to report incidence, management, and impact on morbidity and mortality of CoreValve dislocation during catheter valve implantation., Methods and Results: Between June 2007 and September 2009, the self-expandable CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) was implanted in 212 patients through a transarterial (femoral or subclavian) access. Patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at high risk for conventional surgery were included. We observed dislocation of the prosthesis during CoreValve implantation in 21 patients. In 16 cases, the CoreValve could be implanted in the correct annular position after retrieving it and reloading the catheter. In 4 patients, the completely deployed prosthesis had to be placed in the ascending or abdominal aorta before implanting a second one. One patient underwent open surgery. Overall 30-day mortality was 11.0%, 21.5% in the dislocation group and 9.9% in patients without dislocation (P=0.024). Coronary ischemia, stroke, and renal failure occurred more frequently in patients with dislocation, whereas pacemaker dependency did not differ significantly between the groups., Conclusions: CoreValve dislocation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation occurred in 10% of the cases and significantly increases perioperative risk for severe complications or death. It requires individual specific management and can be managed either interventionally or, rarely, results in open surgery.

Background: Complete supraannular placement of an aortic bioprosthesis is one approach to optimize the hemodynamic result of an aortic valve replacement. It is achieved with the combination of a special valve design and the supraannular sewing technique with noneverted mattress sutures. We evaluated 5 bioprostheses designed for complete supraannular placement to assess potential hemodynamic differences caused by factors (eg, valve material) other than implantation position., Methods and Results: In 336 patients (mean age, 72.0+/-7.1 years; 143 women), hemodynamics including mean pressure gradients, effective orifice areas, and indices and incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch were evaluated 6 months after surgery. Annulus diameter was measured during surgery. Patients received the Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna (Magna, n=169), the Medtronic Mosaic (Mosaic, n=46), the Mosaic Ultra (Ultra, n=17), the SJM Epic Supra (Epic, n=46), and the Sorin Soprano (Soprano, n=58). For small annulus sizes (<23 mm), the mean pressure gradients of the Magna (11.82+/-4.8 mm Hg) were significantly lower than the Mosaic (16.04+/-6.1 mm Hg) and the Ultra (22.0+/-4.1 mm Hg), and the Soprano (13.3+/-5.2 mm Hg) was hemodynamically superior to the Ultra. For medium (23 to 24 mm) and large (>24 mm) annulus sizes, the mean pressure gradients of the Magna were lower than the Epic (10.0+/-3.5 mm Hg versus 14.9+/-6.4 mm Hg; 9.9+/-4.0 mm Hg versus 18.6+/-12.7 mm Hg). Furthermore, in patients with large annulus size, the mean pressure gradients of the Soprano (11.4+/-3.8 mm Hg) were lower compared with the Epic (18.5+/-12.7 mm Hg). Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed more frequently in patients with the Mosaic (12/46; 26.1%) and the Ultra (3/17; 17.6%) prostheses., Conclusions: Complete supraannular placement cannot prevent high pressure gradients or patient-prosthesis mismatch thoroughly, but the choice of a bovine prosthesis can optimize hemodynamic performance.

Background: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) after surgical correction for aortic stenosis is not fully understood on the molecular level. The aim of this study was to examine whether there is an association between LVH regression and extracellular matrix (ECM) gene expression., Methods and Results: A standard model of controlled LVH induction by supracoronary banding (A=baseline) was applied in 44 growing sheep (age, 6 to 8 months). Surgical correction to release the pressure gradient was performed 8.3+/-1 months later (B). The animals were killed after another 10.1+/-2 months (C). At all time points, hemodynamic evaluations and quantitative analysis of mRNA and protein expression for matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) and their tissue inhibitors (TIMP) was performed. Left ventricular mass index was 82+/-21 (A) versus 150+/-33 (B), P<0.01, and 78+/-18 g/m(2) (C), P<0.01. Left ventricular function and cardiac index remained stable. Myocardial fiber diameter index was 9.1+/-1.2 (A) versus 12.3+/-1.4 (B), P<0.01, and 8.4+/-1.3 micrometer/m(2) (C), P<0.01. In parallel to the development of LVH at B, gene expression was increased significantly for MMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-3, and MMP-9 and for TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 and decreased significantly for TIMP-3. After surgical correction (C), there was a complete regression of gene expression to baseline measures., Conclusions: Controlled induction of compensated LVH leads to significant increase in ECM gene expression. The regression of LVH after surgical therapy is associated with complete regression of ECM gene expression. However, no cause-and-effect relation could be demonstrated.