Search

Background: Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) after self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) were described. Is unknown if PPMI predictors remain in the era of high implants using the cusp overlap (COP)., Methods: Single-center, prospective, consecutive case series of patients undergoing self-expanding TAVI with the COP approach. The status of PPMI and other clinical events were ascertained at 30 days., Results: A total of 261 patients were included (84% with Evolut, n = 219). Implant depth >4 mm was infrequent (13.8%). TAVI depth (OR 1.259; p = 0.005), first or second-degree auriculo-ventricular block (OR 3.406; p = 0.033), right-bundle (OR 15.477; p < 0.0001), and incomplete left-bundle branch block (OR 7.964; p = 0.036) were found to be independent predictors of PPMI. The risk of PPMI with deep implant and no electrical disturbances was 3%, and 0% with high implant and no prior electrical disturbances. Those who received PPMI had no statistically significant increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding events, or vascular complications at 30 days, but longer hospital stay (mean difference 1.43 days more, p = 0.003)., Conclusions: Implant depth and prior conduction abnormalities remain the main predictors of PPMI using self-expanding TAVI in the COP era. Patients with high implants and no prior conduction abnormalities may be candidates for early discharge after uneventful self-expanding TAVI, while the rest may need inpatient monitoring regardless of achieving a high implant. The need for PPMI was associated with longer hospital stays., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in non-calcified aortic regurgitation (NCAR) is an off-label procedure. The balloon-expandable Myval includes extra-large sizes (30.5 mm and 32 mm) of interest in this setting., Aims: We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Myval in NCAR., Methods: This was an international, multicentre, observational study that enrolled all consecutive patients with symptomatic severe NCAR undergoing TAVR with the Myval device. The images were centrally analysed., Results: A total of 113 patients were recruited, 64.6% were men, the mean age was 78.4±7.5 years, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.7±1.7%. Aortic root dilatation was present in 59.3% of patients, 7.1% were bicuspid, and the mean annular area was 638.6±106.0 mm 2 . The annular area was beyond the recommended range for extra-large sizes in 2.6% of cases, and additional volume was added in 92% (median 4 cc, up to 9 cc). The extra-large sizes were used in 95 patients (84.1%), and the mean oversizing was 17.9±11.0%. The technical success rate was 94.7%; the rate of residual ≥moderate aortic regurgitation was 8.9%, and the pacemaker rate was 22.2%. There were no cases of annular rupture, cardiac tamponade, or aortic dissection, but in 4 patients (3.5%) valve embolisation occurred (1 antegrade and 3 ventricular), all in cases with a tapered left ventricle outflow tract (p=0.007). Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 5.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Technical success was associated with better survival (97.1% vs 72.7%; p=0.012), and valve embolisation was the main determinant of mortality (p=0.047)., Conclusions: Myval is a feasible and safe option for selected non-operable patients with NCAR and demonstrated good midterm outcomes and lack of impact of oversizing on device durability.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a worldwide adopted procedure with rapidly evolving practices. Regional and temporal variations are expected to be found., Objective: To compare TAVR practice in Latin America with that around the world and to assess its changes in Latin America from 2015 to 2020., Methods: A survey was applied to global TAVR centers between March and September 2015, and again to Latin-American centers between July 2019 and January 2020. The survey consisted of questions addressing: i) center's general information; ii) pre-TAVR evaluation; iii) procedural techniques; iv) post-TAVR management; v) follow-up. Answers from the 2015 survey of Latin-American centers (LATAM15) were compared with those of other centers around the world (WORLD15) and with the 2020 updated Latin-American survey (LATAM20). A 5% level of significance was adopted for statistical analysis., Results: 250 centers participated in the 2015 survey (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) and 46 in the LATAM20. Combined centers experience accounted for 73 707 procedures, with WORLD15 centers performing, on average, 6- and 3-times more procedures than LATAM15 and LATAM20 centers, respectively. LATAM centers performed less minimalistic TAVR than WORLD15 centers, but there was a significant increase in less invasive procedures after 5 years in Latin-American centers. For postprocedural care, a lower period of telemetry and maintenance of temporary pacing wire, along with less utilization of dual antiplatelet therapy was observed in LATAM20 centers., Conclusion: Despite still having a much lower number of procedures, many aspects of TAVR practice in Latin-American centers have evolved in recent years, followingthe trend observed in developed country centers.

Several randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) against surgical aortic valve replacement have been published to date. The fact that higher risk populations were implemented first does not necessarily mean that they benefit more from a TAVR procedure. We performed meta-analysis of the 8 randomized clinical trials performing TAVR for both mortality and stroke outcomes. Meta-regression was used to evaluate the association between mean surgical risk using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and hazard ratio observed in each of the trials. Overall, TAVR was associated with a significant reduction of both mortality and stroke across the whole spectrum of patients enrolled, with no evidence of significant heterogeneity. Metaregression analysis does not suggest a statistically significant association between STS score and hazard ratio for both mortality and stroke. This observation suggests reconsidering the use of risk scores to prioritize TAVR utilization in higher risk patients, while more focus should be done on patient's life expectancy related to TAVR durability., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In elderly (75 years or older) patients living in Latin America with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis candidates for transfemoral approach, the panel suggests the use of transcatheter aortic valve implant (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This is a conditional recommendation, based on moderate certainty in the evidence (⨁⨁⨁Ο).This recommendation does not apply to patients in which there is a standard of care, like TAVI for patients at very high risk for cardiac surgery or inoperable patients, or SAVR for non-elderly patients (eg, under 65 years old) at low risk for cardiac surgery. The suggested age threshold of 75 years old is based on judgement of limited available literature and should be used as a guide rather than a determinant threshold.The conditional nature of this recommendation means that the majority of patients in this situation would want a transfemoral TAVI over SAVR, but some may prefer SAVR. For clinicians, this means that they must be familiar with the evidence supporting this recommendation and help each patient to arrive at a management decision integrating a multidisciplinary team discussion (Heart Team), patient's values and preferences through shared decision-making, and available resources. Policymakers will require substantial debate and the involvement of various stakeholders to implement this recommendation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FSB: proctoring fees from Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic and Boston Scientific. CA, MA, FC: proctoring fees from Edwards LifeSciences and Boston Scientific. Participants without voting rights: PL: proctoring fees from Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific (significant); consulting fees Boston Scientific (not significant). HR: proctoring fees from Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific and Medtronic, and research grants from Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Clinical external reviewers: MT: Nothing to declare. OM: Consulting honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Philips. CR: Nothing to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)