Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate or high surgical risk. Results after TAVR in low-risk patients are very encouraging at midterm follow-up, whereas limited long-term (≥3 year) data are available in this subset of patients. This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term follow-up after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. We searched databases up to July 7, 2024 for randomized clinical trials comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients (defined as Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score <4%) (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480495). Primary outcome analyzed was all-cause death at a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, disabling stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and bioprosthetic valve failure. A total of 3 randomized clinical trials with 2,644 patients (TAVR n = 1,371 patients; SAVR n = 1,273 patients) were included. The follow-up time was 6 ± 2.9 years. TAVR resulted noninferior to SAVR for all-cause death (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.17, p = 0.89, I 2 = 28%), cardiovascular death (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.15, p = 0.54, I 2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57, p = 0.79, I 2 = 61%), aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, and bioprosthetic valve failure. New-onset atrial fibrillation was more common in the SAVR group, whereas permanent pacemaker implantation was more common in the TAVR group. In conclusion, our meta-analysis showed that TAVR is associated with similar long-term outcomes compared with SAVR in selected low-risk patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Valve oversizing has been associated with reduced paravalvular leaks (PVL) and valve migration risk. However, no optimal cut-off oversizing value has been defined for the Evolut system (Medtronic). The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the degree of oversizing and moderate-to-severe PVL and determine the optimal oversizing cut-off value., Methods: We conducted a multicenter study that included 740 consecutive patients with multidetector computed tomography (CT) data. Valve size was selected according to manufacturer recommendations, with oversizing ranging from 10% to 30%. The primary endpoint was moderate-to-severe PVL., Results: The median age was 84 years (79-87 years), with 58.4% women, and a median EuroSCORE II of 4.1% (2.4-7.3%). Moderate-to-severe PVL was observed in 7.0% of the patients. An inverse relationship was found between oversizing and both PVL (11.3%, 8.6%, 5.4%, and 2.7% for quartiles Q1 to Q4; P = .007) and the need for post-dilation (P = .016). The multivariable analysis showed an association between oversizing and PVL (OR: 0.915 for each 1%-increase, P = .002). The optimal oversizing cut-off value to predict PVL was 20%, and PVL was significantly higher in patients with oversizing less than 20% (10.5% vs.4.2%, P less than .001). There were no differences in major clinical events according to the degree of oversizing, and a higher oversizing did not translate into an increased risk of permanent pacemaker (18.4% vs18.3%, P = .976)., Conclusions: In TAVR with the Evolut valve, a higher oversizing was associated with lower rates of moderate-to-severe PVL and a lower need for post-dilation, with no negative impact on procedural and early clinical outcomes. A 20% oversizing threshold could be suggested to reduce PVLs. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate optimal oversizing for this valve system.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) becomes the leading therapeutic choice for severe aortic stenosis. There is a growing body of knowledge on long-term survival outcomes, but available data from real-world observational studies are scarce. An observational cohort study was conducted on 705 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at Strasbourg University Hospital between February 2010 and June 2017. We observed the living status (dead or alive) for each study participants by March 2023. The primary end point was to evaluate the all-cause mortality rate beyond 5 years after TAVR, compare the survival outcomes according to valve type, and identify predictors of mortality. Of the 705 study participants, 91.8% of the TAVR procedures were performed through the common femoral artery and 60.6% were treated with a balloon-expandable valve. Over a mean study period of 5.4 ± 3 years, the all-cause mortality rate was 45.8%. No difference in survival outcomes according to valve type was observed (p = 0.449). All-cause mortality rate was associated with age ≥90 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.625, 1.109 to 2.380, p = 0.013), female gender (HR 0.228, 0.176 to 0.294, p <0.001), diabetes mellitus (HR 1.356, 1.070 to 1.719, p = 0.012), post-TAVR stroke (HR = 2.867, 1.690 to 4.865, p <0.001), and post-TAVR acute kidney injury (HR 1.977, 1.445 to 2.703, p <0.001). In conclusion, the present real-world large tertiary center experience showed that more than half of patients who underwent TAVR are alive beyond 5 years from procedure's date. All-cause mortality is mainly determined by advanced age and co-morbid conditions, and valve type has no advantage on the survival outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the procedural and early outcomes of patients with mechanical mitral valve prosthesis (MVP) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a novel self-expandable retrievable device., Background: TAVR in patients with prior MVP may have an increased risk of complications related to device positioning and interference between both prosthetic valves., Methods: An observational study was conducted, including eight patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and prior mechanical MVP who underwent TAVR with the novel device Allegra TM (Biosensors). No transesophageal monitoring was used., Results: The mean age of the study population was 75 years. The mean distance between MVP and aortic annulus was 3.8 mm. Procedural success was achieved in all patients with no major intraprocedural, in-hospital, or follow-up complications., Conclusions: TAVR with Allegra TAVI system in patients with prior MVP offers good procedural and clinical outcomes., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: There is a rising trend for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients. Data on the use of self-expandable (SEV) vs. balloon-expandable (BEV) valves in these patients are scarce. Therefore, we systematically compared clinical outcomes in bicuspid aortic stenosis patients treated with SEV and BEV., Methods: Data were extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles. Eight studies published from 2013 to 2020 including a total of 1,080 patients (BEV: n = 620; SEV: n = 460) were selected. Primary endpoints were procedural, 30-day and 1-year mortality. Secondary endpoints were new pacemaker implantation, annular rupture, coronary obstruction, moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak, need of second valve, stroke and acute kidney injury., Results: We found no statistically significant difference in mortality between patients treated with BEV vs. SEV during index procedure, at 30 days and at 1 year. BEVs showed a statistically significant higher risk of annulus rupture (2.5%) in comparison with SEV (0%) (OR 5.81 [95% CI, 3.78-8.92], p < .001). New generation BEVs were also associated with significantly less paravalvular leak when compared to new generation SEVs (OR 0.08 [95% CI, 0.02-0.35], p = .001)., Conclusions: This meta-analysis of observational studies of TAVI for bicuspid valves, showed no difference in short- and mid-term TAVI mortality with BEVs and SEVs. BEVs presented a higher risk of annular rupture in comparison with SEV., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

This study aimed to compare incidence of IE between BE and SE valves by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2019. Included studies were published observational studies that compared the risk of IE among patients undergoing TAVR employing BE versus SE valves, using the random-effects to calculate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Ten cohort studies from April 2013 to November 2019 were included in this meta-analysis involving 13,478 subjects (6289 SE and 7189 BE types). Our study showed no statistical difference in IE rates between each type of valves (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.68-1.35, p = 0.801 with I2 = 14.7%). There was no difference in IE rate between BE and SE valves following TAVR. Further studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now indicated in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis and low, moderate, and high surgical risk. There are multiple types of valves available in TAVR. SAPIEN 3, and Evolut R are two of the most commonly used valves., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies that compared SAPIEN 3 vs Evolut R in patients undergoing TAVR. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included major of life-threatening bleeding, risk of stroke, need of permanent pacemaker implantation, and risk of moderate to severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)., Results: We included a total of 9 studies. One study was a randomized clinical trial, five were prospective observational studies and three were retrospective. 30-day mortality rate was similar between SAPIEN 3 and Evolut R (odds ratio (OR) 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.93; p = 0.47). The risk of major or life-threatening bleeding (OR of 0.83, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.39; p = 0.48), and the risk of stroke (OR of 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.78; p = 0.62) were also similar between the two types of valves. Compared to SAPIEN 3, Evolut R was associated with statistically significant risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR of 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; p = 0.0007), and moderate to severe PVR (OR of 2.56, 95% CI 1.14 to 5.74; p = 0.02)., Conclusions: At 30 day follow up, both Evolut R and SAPIEN 3 shared similar risks of 30-day mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, and stroke; however greater odds of pacemaker placement implantation and moderate to severe PVR were associated with Evolut R., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the impact of aortic angulation (AA) on success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a new generation self-expandable prosthesis (Medtronic Evolut R®). Specific anatomical conditions, such as for example the presence of a horizontal aorta with elevated AA, have seemed to pose a significant challenge for the correct positioning and consequent functioning of self-expandable TAVR prostheses. We assessed 146 patients treated with Evolut R. AA was measured at computed tomography and two groups were identified using as cutoff the mean AA value. Acute outcomes were collected and compared. AA mean value was 49.6 ± 9.4° (AA ≥ 50°: 76 and AA < 50°: 70 patients). Risk profile (Logistic euroSCORE: AA ≥ 50°: 15.7; 75% IQR: 11.1-22.1 vs. AA < 50°: 14.7; 75% IQR: 10.7-24.0; p = 0.8) was equivalent. Perioperative results were similar: valve resheathing (AA ≥ 50°: 21.0% vs. AA < 50°: 24.2%; p = 0.6), recapturing (AA ≥ 50°: 19.7% vs. AA < 50°: 25.7%; p = 0.3), fluoroscopy time (AA ≥ 50°: 11.1 IQR: 8.6-17.0 min. vs. AA < 50°: 11.0 IQR: 8.0-15.7 min.; p = 0.9), and contrast agent use (AA ≥ 50°: 99.0 ± 41.8 ml. vs. AA < 50°: 104.2 ± 38.5 ml.; p = 0.4). At discharge, moderate paravalvular leak was present in 8/76 (10.5%) of the AA ≥ 50° and 6/70 (8.6%) of the AA < 50° (p = 0.7) patients. Severe paravalvular leak, implantation of a second valve, and/or conversion to surgery did not occur. Early safety (AA ≥ 50°: 7.8% vs. AA < 50°: 5.7%; p = 0.6) was similar in the two groups. AA did not affect procedural outcomes and valve performance of the Evolut R prosthesis.

Objectives: We herein report a single-center experience with the Portico TAVI system. Main focus was set on outcomes in patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function and predictors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation., Methods: Between 05/2014 and 10/2017, 106 consecutive patients received TAVI using the Portico device. For comparison of patients with/without impaired LV function, and determination of multi-slice computed tomography and electrocardiogram correlates for PPM implantation subgroups were built (Subgroup I: LVEF ≥ 50%, n = 69, Subgroup II: LVEF < 50%, n = 37; Subgroup A: no PPM implantation, n = 89; Subgroup B: PPM implantation, n = 17). Data were retrospectively analyzed., Results: Device success was 95.3% (101/106) with resulting transvalvular peak/mean pressure gradients of 10.6 ± 5.6/5.4 ± 3.1 and PVL ≥ moderate in 5/106 patients (4.7%). 30-day mortality was 4.7% (5/106; subgroup I 3/69, 4.3%; subgroup II 2/37, 5.4%; p = 1.0). Regarding VARC-2 adjudicated clinical endpoints stroke (3/106, 2.8%; subgroups I/II: 2/69 vs. 1/37, p = 1.0) and acute kidney injury (9/106, 8.5%; subgroups I/II: 6/69 vs. 3/37, p = 1.0), no significant differences were found. Postprocedural PPM implantation occurred in 17.9% (19/106) of the patients. Logistic regression for PPM implantation demonstrated predictive character of left coronary cusp (LCC) calcium load in zone 1 (annular plane to coronary ostia) (p = 0.05, threshold 193 mm 3 ) and total calcium load of zone 1 (p = 0.05, threshold 751.2 mm 3 )., Conclusions: The Portico valve demonstrates a satisfying safety outcome, especially for patients with impaired LV function. Results of the CE-mark trial were confirmed, except for higher PPM rates. PPM rates are in accordance with other reports on this TAVI platform.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of factors that affect procedural outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo prosthesis (Symetis/Boston, Ecublens, Switzerland)., Background: Predictors of procedural outcomes using the ACURATE neo prosthesis are poorly understood., Methods: A total of 500 patients underwent transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo prosthesis. Device landing zone calcification was stratified as severe, moderate, or mild. Anatomic and procedural predictors of second-degree or greater paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation were assessed., Results: Post-procedural second-degree or greater paravalvular leakage was more frequent with increasing device landing zone calcification (mild 0.8% vs. moderate 5.0% vs. severe 13.0%; p < 0.001), whereas permanent pacemaker implantation was independent of device landing zone calcification. More severe periannular calcification (odds ratio [OR]: 1.007; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003 to 1.010; p < 0.001), less oversizing (OR: 0.867; 95% CI: 0.773 to 0.971; p = 0.014), the presence of annular plaque protrusions (OR: 2.756; 95% CI: 1.138 to 6.670; p = 0.025), and aortic movement of the delivery system after full deployment (OR: 5.593; 95% CI: 1.299 to 24.076; p = 0.02), and sinotubular junction height (OR: 1.156; 95% CI: 1.007 to 1.328; p = 0.04) independently predicted second-degree or greater paravalvular leakage. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation were pre-existing right bundle branch block (OR: 3.122; 95% CI: 1.261 to 7.731; p = 0.01) and more oversizing (OR: 1.111; 95% CI: 1.009 to 1.222; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: Successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the ACURATE neo device predominantly depends on careful patient selection with appropriate oversizing and taking into account the individual anatomy and calcium distribution of the aortic root., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We herein aimed to compare acute 30-day outcomes of latest-generation self-expandable and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves., Methods: From 2012 through 2016, 104 consecutive patients (study group, 69.2% female, 81.7 ± 5.5 years, logEuroSCORE I 15.9 ± 9.3%) received transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Symetis ACURATE neo® transcatheter heart valve. A control group of patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards Sapien 3™ transcatheter heart valve was retrieved from our database and matched to the study group. Data were retrospectively analysed according to updated Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions., Results: Device success was 94.2% (98 of 104) and 98.1% (102 of 104) in study and control groups, respectively (P = 0.157). All-cause 30-day mortality was 3.9 (4 of 104) vs 0.9% (1 of 104) (P = 0.317). Resultant transvalvular peak/mean gradients and effective orifice area were 14.2 ± 5.7 vs 22.6 ± 6.8 mmHg (P < 0.001)/7.3 ± 2.8 vs 11.8 ± 3.5 mmHg (P < 0.001) and 2.0 ± 0.4 vs 1.7 ± 0.4 cm2 (P = 0.063). Paravalvular leakage ≥moderate was observed in 4.8% (5 of 104) and 1.9% (2 of 104) (P = 0.257). Rate of permanent pacemaker implantation was 10.6% (11 of 104) vs 16.4% (17 of 104) (P = 0.239)., Conclusions: Next-generation self-expandable transcatheter heart valves preserve superiority in terms of post-interventional haemodynamics without presenting former drawbacks: rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation and severity of residual paravalvular leakage were similar to balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a therapeutic alternative for patients presenting with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and considered at high-surgical risk. Paravalvular leak (PVL), conduction disorders, and coronary obstruction remain unresolved procedure-related complications. The aim of this manuscript was to report the first North American experience with the ACURATE-neo TM aortic bioprosthesis and its ACURATE-TF TM delivery system (Symetis S.A., Ecublens, Switzerland)., Methods: Transfemoral ACURATE-neo TM aortic valve implantation was performed in 20 patients. Clinical and echocardiographic assessment was performed at baseline, postprocedure and at least 30 days. Outcomes were assessed according to valvular academic research consortium (VARC-2) criteria., Results: The mean age was 82.7 ± 7.0 years with a mean logistic-EuroSCORE-II of 5.0 ± 2.9% and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 4.7 ± 2.3%. Device success was achieved in all patients. The mean distance between the aortic-annulus and the left main coronary artery ostium was 14.3 ± 3.2 mm, and eight (40%) patients had <12 mm. At 30 days, there were no deaths, conversions to surgery, or major procedure-related complications. New-pacemaker implantation was required in one (5.3%) patient. ACURATE-neo TM implantation resulted in a significant reduction in mean transvalvular gradient (49.9 ± 15.8 to 9.7 ± 5.7 mm Hg, P < 0.0001) and increase in effective-orifice area (0.65 ± 0.16 to 1.83 ± 0.36 cm 2 , P = 0.001) at hospital discharge. Paravalvular leak was absent in four (20%) patients, trace in nine (45%) patients, and mild in seven (35%) patients. Hospital discharge occurred at a mean of 7.0 ± 4.5 days, and all patients were in NYHA class I-II at a mean follow-up of 8.6 ± 2.3 months., Conclusion: The present initial North American experience shows that the ACURATE-neo TM aortic bioprosthesis was safely and successfully implanted by transfemoral approach. The special design of this newer-generation device affords a stable and predictable implantation, while providing optimal hemodynamic performance with a relatively low rate of PPI. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Aortic valve predilation with balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) is recommended before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), despite limited data around the requirement of this preprocedural step and the potential risks of embolization. This study aimed to investigate the trends in practice and associations of BAV on short-term outcomes in the UK TAVI registry., Methods and Results: Eleven clinical endpoints were investigated, including 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, aortic regurgitation, valve dysfunction, and composite early safety. All endpoints were defined as per the VARC-2 definitions. Odd ratios of each endpoint were estimated using logistic regression, with data analyzed in balloon- and self-expandable valve subgroups. Propensity scores were calculated using patient demographics and procedural variables, which were included in the models of each endpoint to adjust for measured confounding. Between 2007 and 2014, 5887 patients met the study inclusion criteria, 1421 (24.1%) of whom had no BAV before TAVI valve deployment. We observed heterogeneity in the use of BAV nationally, both temporally and by center experience; rates of BAV in pre-TAVI workup varied between 30% and 97% across TAVI centers. All endpoints were similar between treatment groups in SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) valve patients. After correction for multiple testing, none of the endpoints in CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) patients were significantly different between patients with or without predilation., Conclusions: Performing TAVI without predilation was not associated with adverse short-term outcomes post procedure, especially when using a balloon-expandable prosthesis. Randomized trials including different valve types are required to provide conclusive evidence regarding the utility of predilation before-TAVI., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: The use of a balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve previously resulted in a greater rate of device success compared with a self-expandable transcatheter heart valve., Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data at longer term follow-up., Methods: The investigator-initiated trial randomized 241 high-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and anatomy suitable for treatment with both balloon- and self-expandable transcatheter heart valves to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. Patients were followed-up for 1 year, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function., Results: At 1 year, the rates of death of any cause (17.4% vs. 12.8%; relative risk [RR]: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 2.50; p = 0.37) and of cardiovascular causes (12.4% vs. 9.4%; RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.75; p = 0.54) were not statistically significantly different in the balloon- and self-expandable groups, respectively. The frequencies of all strokes (9.1% vs. 3.4%; RR: 2.66; 95% CI: 0.87 to 8.12; p = 0.11) and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (7.4% vs. 12.8%; RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.27; p = 0.19) did not statistically significantly differ between the 2 groups. Elevated transvalvular gradients during follow-up were observed in 4 patients in the balloon-expandable group (3.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.12); all were resolved with anticoagulant therapy, suggesting a thrombotic etiology. More than mild paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent in the self-expandable group (1.1% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Despite the higher device success rate with the balloon-expandable valve, 1-year follow-up of patients in CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT Trial), with limited statistical power, revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with both balloon- and self-expandable prostheses that were not statistically significantly different. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial; NCT01645202)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is currently expanding worldwide, however all available prostheses share some fundamental design drawbacks. We investigated the feasibility, safety and hemodynamic performance of the innovative transapical Acurate TA™ self-expandable device, which has the unique advantage of offering anatomically correct self-alignment within the aortic root. Design. Transapical TAVI was performed in six acute swine and six chronic sheep procedures, with follow-up of 7, 14, 21, 28, 60 and 90 days. TAVI was performed under TEE and angiographic guidance without rapid pacing. Results. A partial sternotomy approach was used to access the LV-apex. All valve implantations were performed as planned and all animals survived the implantation procedure. After deployment, no migration, embolization or coronary obstruction was observed during the observation period. Intraoperative TEE examination identified no signs of intravalvular leakage or valve dysfunction. Transvalvular mean pressure gradients were 5.4 ± 2.2 mmHg decreasing during follow-up (1.6 ± 0.8 mmHg, 1.8 ± 0.8 mmHg, 1.3 ± 0.2, 1.8 ± 0.7 mmHg, 1.6 ± 0.8 mmHg), with a slight increase atday 90 (4.0 ± 2.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Macroscopic examination at necropsy showed correct anatomical positioning of the valve stent without any signs of structural valve deterioration. Conclusions. These first results of the innovative self-expandable transapical ACURATE TA™ device explore the feasibility and safety of anatomically correct off-pump implantation with optimal hemodynamic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are broadly used in clinical practice. However, adequately powered randomized controlled trials comparing these two valve designs are lacking. Methods: The CENTER-study included 12,381 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. Patients undergoing TAVI with a BE-valve (n = 4096) were compared to patients undergoing TAVI with an SE-valve (n = 4096) after propensity score matching. Clinical outcomes including one-year mortality and stroke rates were assessed. Results: In the matched population of n = 5410 patients, the mean age was 81 ± 3 years, 60% was female, and the STS-PROM predicted 30-day mortality was 6.2% (IQR 4.0–12.4). One-year mortality was not different between patients treated with BE- or SE-valves (BE: 16.4% vs. SE: 17.0%, Relative Risk 1.04, 95%CI 0.02–1.21, p = 0.57). One-year stroke rates were also comparable (BE: 4.9% vs. SE: 5.3%, RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.86–1.37, p = 0.48). Conclusion: This study suggests that one-year mortality and stroke rates were comparable in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI with either BE or SE-valves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]