Search

Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) has emerged as a promising intervention for the treatment of severe tricuspid regurgitation with complex valve morphology. This consensus document provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of orthotopic TTVR, focusing on patient selection, procedural details, and follow-up care. Clinical outcomes from initial studies and compassionate use cases are discussed, highlighting the effectiveness of TTVR in reducing tricuspid regurgitation, inducing reverse right ventricular remodeling, and enhancing patients' quality of life. This review paper also addresses potential complications and challenges associated with TTVR, such as new-onset conduction disturbances, bleeding complications, and afterload mismatch, and provides expert recommendations for the periprocedural management, anticoagulation strategies, and long-term follow-up. With the commercial approval of the first TTVR system in the United States and Europe, it intends to serve as a reference for clinicians and researchers involved in the evolving field of transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hausleiter has received research support and speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Stolz has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Lurz has received institutional fees and research grants from Abbott Cardiovascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Rudolph has received research support and speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; and is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Dr Estevez-Loureiro is a consultant for and has received fees form Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Venus Medtech, and Jenscare. Dr Davidson has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular; and is an uncompensated advisor to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Zahr has received grant support/research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Kodali has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; has received consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and has equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has served as national principal investigator for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) US investigation device exemption trials; has received personal proctoring fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and has received travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Cheung is a member of the eligibility Committee of the TRINITY CE Trial; and is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Jenscare. Dr Lopes has received research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, and Pfizer; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr Maisano has received grant or research institutional support from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, NVT, Terumo, and Venus; has received consulting fees and honoraria (both personal and institutional) from Abbott, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Mtex, Occlufit, Simulands, Squadra, Valgen, Venus, and Xeltis; has received royalty income from Edwards Lifesciences; and is shareholder (including share options) of 4Tech, Magenta, and Transseptal Solutions. Dr Fam is a consultant to Edwards, Abbott, Medtronic, and Venus Medtech. Dr Latib has served on the advisory board for Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Shifamed dyne, Philips, and NeoChord Inc. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, CorFlow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse, Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, Infraredx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson and Johnson, MedAlliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Miracor Medical, MonarQ, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; has served as an advisory board member and/or a member of the steering or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave, with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and is a member of the steering or executive committee groups of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding from industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Praz has received a research grant to the institution from Abbott Vascular; and has been compensated for travel expenses by Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medira, Siemens Healthineers, and InQB8 Medical Technologies. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2025 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the recent approval of the transcatheter EVOQUE tricuspid valve replacement system to treat severe, symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation, there is a need to define the appropriate patient population and anatomical considerations for this device. In this consensus document, the authors review these considerations, describe the procedural steps and imaging requirements to ensure technical success, and discuss management of complex intraprocedural circumstances., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Philips Healthcare, and Siemens Healthineers; and is chief scientific officer for the echocardiography core laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Makkar is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare. Dr Davidson has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular; is an advisor for Philips Healthcare; and is an uncompensated advisor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Puthamana has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Structural; and has received consultant fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Zahr has received consulting, research, and educational grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Philips. Dr Chadderdon is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr Fam is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Cardiovalve. Dr Ong has received speaker honoraria and consultant fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Yadav has received consultant and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; is an advisory board member for and has stock options in Dasi Simulations; has received institutional research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Innovalve, JenaValve, HighLife, Trisol, and CroiValve. Dr Thourani has received research grants from and is an advisor for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Vannan has received institutional research grants and equipment support from Siemens Healthineers, Philips, GE Healthcare; and has received institutional speaker honoraria from Siemens, Philips, Abbott, and Medtronic (no direct industry compensation). Dr Tchétché has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Dumonteil is a consultant for Abbott, Ancora Heart, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Smith has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, NeoChord, and Artivion; has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and is on the advisory board of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Grayburn has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cardiovalve, Cardiomech, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, NeoChord, Restore Medical, and 4C Medical; and has received consulting and advisory board fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and 4C Medical. Dr Webb has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Moss is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and has received speaker fees and travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution without personal remuneration from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, B. Braun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Cardiovalve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse, Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, Infraredx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, MedAlliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, MonarQ, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; has served as an advisory board member and/or member of the steering or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, and V-Wave with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and is a member of the steering or executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding from industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Nabauer has received consultant and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular. Dr Hausleiter is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and has received research funding and speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kodali is a consultant for Admedus, TriCares, TriFlo, X-Dot, Micro-Interventional Devices, Supira, Adona, Tioga, Helix Valve Repair, and Moray Medical; has served as an advisory board member for Dura, Biotech, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Philips, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with MitraClip™ (Abbott Vascular) in symptomatic high surgical risk Indian patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR)., Methods: Patients with moderately severe or severe primary or secondary MR and deemed high surgical risk were treated with MitraClip™. The data were collected retrospectively from medical records. The primary outcome was technical success, and secondary outcomes were ≤2+ MR reduction and improvement in functional capacity at 30 days., Results: Between November 2018 and August 2023, 64 patients were treated with MitraClip TM . The mean age was 70.0 ± 12.1 years and 64 % were males. The mean EuroScore II and STS score predicted mortality for mitral valve repair were 5.8 ± 4.5 % and 4.0 ± 3.8 % respectively. MR etiology was primary in 56.3 %, secondary in 40.6 % and mixed in 3.1 %. The device was implanted successfully in all but one patient with technical success rate of 98.4 %. The average number of clips per patient was 1.5 ± 0.6 and 42.2 % patients received more than one clip. The mean mitral valve gradient was 3.5 ± 1.6 mmHg. The MR severity of ≤2+ was achieved in 91.8 % of the subjects and similar proportion were in New York Heart Association Functional Class I or II at 30 days., Conclusion: In high-risk Indian patients with symptomatic significant MR, TEER with MitraClip™ was achieved with a high technical success rate. It was associated with significant reduction in MR severity and improvement in functional capacity in >90 % of the subjects., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest COI disclosure enclosed., (Copyright © 2024 Cardiological Society of India. Published by Elsevier, a division of RELX India, Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Scarce data exist on patients with previous left valve surgery (PLVS) undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI). This study sought to investigate the procedural and early outcomes in patients with PLVS undergoing TTVI., Methods: This was a subanalysis of the multicenter TriValve registry including 462 patients, 82 (18%) with PLVS. Data were analyzed according to the presence of PLVS in the overall cohort and in a propensity score-matched population including 51 and 115 patients with and without PLVS, respectively., Results: Patients with PLVS were younger (72 ± 10 vs 78 ± 9 years; p < 0.01) and more frequently female (67.1% vs 53.2%; P = 0.02). Similar rates of procedural success (PLVS 80.5%; no-PLVS 82.1%; P = 0.73), and 30-day mortality (PLVS 2.4%, no-PLVS 3.4%; P = 0.99) were observed. After matching, there were no significant differences in both all-cause rehospitalisation (PLVS 21.1%, no-PLVS 26.5%; P = 0.60) and all-cause mortality (PLVS 9.8%, no-PLVS 6.7%; P = 0.58). At last follow-up (median 6 [interquartile range 1-12] months after the procedure), most patients (81.8%) in the PLVS group were in NYHA functional class I-II (P = 0.12 vs no-PLVS group), and TR grade was ≤ 2 in 82.6% of patients (P = 0.096 vs no-PVLS group). A poorer right ventricular function and previous heart failure hospitalization determined increased risks of procedural failure and poorer outcomes at follow-up, respectively., Conclusions: In patients with PLVS, TTVI was associated with high rates of procedural success and low early mortality. However, about one-third of patients required rehospitalisation or died at midterm follow-up. These results would support TTVI as a reasonable alternative to redo surgery in patients with PLVS and suggest the importance of earlier treatment to improve clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The healthcare burden posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the New York Metropolitan area has necessitated the postponement of elective procedures resulting in a marked reduction in cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) volumes with a potential to impact interventional cardiology (IC) fellowship training., Methods: We conducted a web-based survey sent electronically to 21 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited IC fellowship program directors (PDs) and their respective fellows., Results: Fourteen programs (67%) responded to the survey and all acknowledged a significant decrease in CCL procedural volumes. More than half of the PDs reported part of their CCL being converted to inpatient units and IC fellows being redeployed to COVID-19 related duties. More than two-thirds of PDs believed that the COVID-19 pandemic would have a moderate (57%) or severe (14%) adverse impact on IC fellowship training, and 21% of the PDs expected their current fellows' average percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume to be below 250. Of 25 IC fellow respondents, 95% expressed concern that the pandemic would have a moderate (72%) or severe (24%) adverse impact on their fellowship training, and nearly one-fourth of fellows reported performing fewer than 250 PCIs as of March 1st. Finally, roughly one-third of PDs and IC fellows felt that there should be consideration of an extension of fellowship training or a period of early career mentorship after fellowship., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a significant reduction in CCL procedural volumes that is impacting IC fellowship training in the NY metropolitan area. These results should inform professional societies and accreditation bodies to offer tailored opportunities for remediation of affected trainees., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Current guidelines support the use of transcatheter mitral valve interventions to treat some selected high-risk patients with significant mitral valvulopathy. As with any other interventional cardiac procedure, concerns have been raised about cerebrovascular event. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of cerebrovascular events following (1) transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair with mitral valve clip and (2) transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR)., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the cerebrovascular adverse events after transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair and TMVR procedures. The primary endpoint was the incidence of cerebrovascular events as defined by the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium. An event that occurred within 30 days or during index hospitalisation was defined as periprocedural; otherwise it was defined as non-periprocedural. This study was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Aggregated study-level data were pooled using a random effect model. The quality of each study was appraised with the Hawker checklist, a method of systematically reviewing research from different paradigms., Results: Sixty studies totalling 28 155 patients undergoing edge-to-edge repair with mitral valve clip were included in the analysis. Periprocedural stroke and non-periprocedural stroke rates were 0.9% (95% CI 0.6 to 1.1) and 2.4% (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2), respectively. For TMVR procedures, 26 studies including 1910 patients were analysed. The estimated periprocedural stroke incidence was 1% (95% CI 0.5 to 1.8) compared with 7% (95% CI 0.8 to 18.5) for non-periprocedural stroke., Conclusions: Transcatheter mitral valve interventions are associated with low rates of cerebrovascular events. The exact mechanisms of these complications are still poorly understood given the relative paucity of good quality data., Trial Registration Number: CRD42019117257., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SK is a member of Abbott Vascular advisory board and consultant for Claret Medical. JR-C holds the Canadian Research Chair 'Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière' for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions, and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. J-MP has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of baseline massive or torrential tricuspid regurgitation (TR) after transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI)., Background: The use of TTVI to treat symptomatic severe TR has been increasing rapidly, but little is known regarding the impact of massive or torrential TR beyond severe TR., Methods: The study population comprised 333 patients with significant symptomatic TR from the TriValve Registry who underwent TTVI. Mid-term outcomes after TTVI were assessed according to the presence of massive or torrential TR, defined as vena contracta width ≥14 mm. Procedural success was defined as patient survival after successful device implantation and delivery system retrieval, with residual TR ≤2+. The primary endpoint comprised survival rate and freedom from rehospitalization for heart failure, survival rate, and rehospitalization at 1 year., Results: Baseline massive or torrential TR and severe TR were observed in 154 patients (46.2%) and 179 patients (53.8%), respectively. Patients with massive or torrential TR had a higher prevalence of ascites than those with severe TR (27.3% vs. 20.4%, respectively; p = 0.15) and demonstrated a similar procedural success rate (83.2% vs. 77.3%, respectively; p = 0.21). The incidence of peri-procedural adverse events was low, with no significant between-group differences. Freedom from the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients with massive or torrential TR than in those with severe TR, which was significantly associated with an increased risk for 1-year death of any cause or rehospitalization for heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.91; 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 3.34; p = 0.022). Freedom from the composite endpoint was significantly higher in patients with massive or torrential TR when procedural success was achieved (69.9% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.048)., Conclusions: Baseline massive or torrential TR is associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure 1 year after TTVI. Procedural success is related to better outcomes, even in the presence of baseline massive or torrential TR. (International Multisite Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies Registry [TriValve]; NCT03416166)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The interference of a transtricuspid cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) lead with tricuspid valve function may contribute to the mechanism of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and poses specific therapeutic challenges during transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI). Feasibility and efficacy of TTVI in presence of a CIED is unclear., Background: Feasibility of TTVI in presence of a CIED lead has never been proven on a large basis., Methods: The study population consisted of 470 patients with severe symptomatic TR from the TriValve (Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapies) registry who underwent TTVI at 21 centers between 2015 and 2018. The association of CIED and outcomes were assessed., Results: Pre-procedural CIED was present in 121 of 470 (25.7%) patients. The most frequent location of the CIED lead was the posteroseptal commissure (44.0%). As compared with patients without a transvalvular lead (no-CIED group), patients having a tricuspid lead (CIED group) were more symptomatic (New York Heart Association functional class III to IV in 95.9% vs. 92.3%; p = 0.02) and more frequently had previous episodes of right heart failure (87.8% vs. 69.0%; p = 0.002). No-CIED patients had more severe TR (effective regurgitant orifice area 0.7 ± 0.6 cm 2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 cm 2 ; p = 0.02), but significantly better right ventricular function (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion = 16.7 ± 5.0 mm vs. 15.9 ± 4.0 mm; p = 0.04). Overall, 373 patients (79%) were treated with the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) (106 [87.0%] in the CIED group). Among them, 154 (33%) patients had concomitant transcatheter mitral repair (55 [46.0%] in the CIED group, all MitraClip). Procedural success was achieved in 80.0% of no-CIED patients and in 78.6% of CIED patients (p = 0.74), with an in-hospital mortality of 2.9% and 3.7%, respectively (p = 0.70). At 30 days, residual TR ≤2+ was observed in 70.8% of no-CIED and in 73.7% of CIED patients (p = 0.6). Symptomatic improvement was observed in both groups (NYHA functional class I to II at 30 days: 66.0% vs. 65.0%; p = 0.30). Survival at 12 months was 80.7 ± 3.0% in the no-CIED patients and 73.6 ± 5.0% in the CIED patients (p = 0.30)., Conclusions: TTVI is feasible in selected patients with CIED leads and acute procedural success and short-term clinical outcomes are comparable to those observed in patients without a transtricuspid lead., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter heart valves has recently become an alternative for patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses, failed surgical repairs with annuloplasty rings or severe mitral annular calcification who are poor surgical candidates. Outcomes of these procedures are collected in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. A comprehensive analysis of mitral valve-in-valve (MViV), mitral valve-in-ring (MViR), and valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) outcomes has not been performed. We sought to evaluate short-term outcomes of early experience with MViV, MViR, and ViMAC in the United States., Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry., Results: Nine hundred three high-risk patients (median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10%) underwent MViV (n=680), MViR (n=123), or ViMAC (n=100) between March 2013 and June 2017 at 172 hospitals. Median age was 75 years, 59.2% female. Technical and procedural success were higher in MViV. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently with ViMAC (ViMAC=10%, MViR=4.9%, MViV=0.7%; P <0.001). In-hospital mortality (MViV=6.3%, MViR=9%, ViMAC=18%; P =0.004) and 30-day mortality (MViV=8.1%, MViR=11.5%, ViMAC=21.8%; P =0.003) were higher in ViMAC. At 30-day follow-up, median mean mitral valve gradient was 7 mm Hg, most patients (96.7%) had mitral regurgitation grade ≤1 (+) and were in New York Heart Association class I to II (81.7%)., Conclusions: MViV using aortic balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves is associated with a low complication rate, a 30-day mortality lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and superior short-term outcomes than MViR and ViMAC. At 30 days, patients in all groups experienced improvement of symptoms, and valve performance remained stable. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02245763.

The standard technique for percutaneous catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) involves obtaining left atrial access and catheter manipulation from an inferior transfemoral venous access. However, in patients with inferior vena cava interruption, a standard transfemoral venous approach is not possible. In these cases, a percutaneous approach from a superior central vein, such as the internal jugular vein or the axillary/subclavian vein can be considered. In this article, we describe the details of our technique to obtain left atrial catheterization and perform catheter ablation of AF from a superior approach. Our technique involves the use of steerable sheaths, dedicated radiofrequency wires, and intracardiac echocardiography guidance., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is typically performed utilizing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and fluoroscopy. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can be a suitable alternative to guide implantation. Given the limited data, we performed a meta-analysis of all studies that compared ICE vs TEE for percutaneous LAAC., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and major scientific conference sessions for published abstracts and manuscripts until 1 August 2018. Studies reporting clinical outcomes comparing TEE vs ICE for endocardial LAAC in human subjects aged greater than or equal to 18 years were included. Two investigators independently extracted the data and individual quality assessment was performed. The analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration software, RevMan 5.3., Results: Five eligible studies consisting of 1157 patients (ICE-391 patients and TEE-766 patients) were included. Four studies were retrospective and one was prospective, nonrandomized. Two studies included Watchman, two included the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug/Amulet device, and one included both devices. There was no significant difference in CHA2DS2VASC or HAS-BLED scores between both groups. There was no significant difference in acute procedural success between ICE vs TEE (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = 0.24). There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time (mean difference [MD], 1.84 minutes; 95% CI, 0.59-4.27; P = 0.14) and total procedure time (MD, -5.06 minutes; 95% CI, -24.6-14.4; P = 0.61) between both groups. There was also no significant difference in complications including pericardial tamponade, device embolization, and stroke between both groups., Conclusion: In our meta-analysis, ICE was as effective as TEE during percutaneous LAAC., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Interest in the transcatheter solutions for tricuspid regurgitation has gained momentum given the limited indications for and high in-hospital mortality associated with isolated surgical intervention. Advanced imaging techniques to guide the procedures are the key to technical success. The following overview of the imaging requirements of selected devices is intended to give a glimpse into the complex procedures now possible with imaging guidance., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Isolated reoperative tricuspid valve replacement is one of the highest risk operations classified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons registry, particularly in the setting of preexisting right ventricular dysfunction. Transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation represents an attractive alternative to redo surgery in patients with tricuspid bioprosthetic valve degeneration who are considered high-risk or unsuitable surgical candidates. In this review article, the authors discuss the emergence of transcatheter tricuspid valve-in-valve therapy, preprocedural echocardiographic assessment of tricuspid bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, periprocedural imaging required for tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation, and postprocedural assessment of tricuspid transcatheter device function., (Copyright © 2017 American Society of Echocardiography. All rights reserved.)

As new transcatheter mitral valve (MV) interventions continuously evolve, potential procedure-related adverse events demand careful investigation. The risk of cerebral embolic damage is ubiquitous in any left-sided structural heart intervention (and potentially linked to long-term neurocognitive sequelae); therefore, efforts to evaluate these aspects in the field of catheter-based MV procedures are justified. Given the peculiarities of MV anatomy, MV disease, and MV procedures, the lessons learned from other transcatheter heart interventions (i.e., transcatheter aortic valve replacement) cannot be directly translated to MV applications. Through a systematic assessment of available evidence, the authors present and discuss procedure- and patient-related factors potentially associated with cerebral embolic risk during catheter-based MV interventions. Given the paucity of available data in this field, future large, dedicated studies are needed to understand whether cerebral embolic injury represents a real clinical issue during MV procedures., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine trends in the rates of complications and outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR)., Background: It is unknown whether an evolution of case selection or accrual of case experience over time has resulted in a change in the rates of complications and outcomes of patients undergoing TF-TAVR., Methods: TF-TAVR patients enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) nonrandomized continued access registry (N = 1,063, enrolled March 2011 to January 2012 after completion of the randomized trial) were divided into tertiles (T1 through T3) based on enrollment date. Patient characteristics and rates of adverse events were compared over time., Results: There were no significant differences in sex, New York Heart Association functional classes III/IV, diabetes, coronary artery disease, previous revascularization, pulmonary hypertension, renal disease, or liver disease. There was an increase in mean age, but a decrease in porcelain aorta, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (including oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), previous chest wall radiation, and a slight decrease in the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. There was a significant decline in the frequency of patients deemed "inoperable" (cohort B) and in need for post-dilation. Percutaneous access increased significantly. There were no differences in post-procedural stroke, major bleeding, major vascular complications, or the need for aortic valve reintervention over time. The incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation declined significantly as did all-cause mortality at 1 and 2 years., Conclusions: A significant reduction in the incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation as well as longer term all-cause mortality was observed over time. The cause of these reductions was likely multifactorial, including improved case selection and procedural techniques and increased site experience. (THE PARTNER TRIAL [Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial]; NCT00530894)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: When transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) cannot be carried out through transfemoral access, alternative access TAVR is indicated. The purpose of this study was to explore inhospital and 1-year outcomes of patients undergoing alternative access TAVR through the transapical (TA) or transaortic (TAo) techniques in the United States., Methods: Clinical records of 4,953 patients undergoing TA (n = 4,085) or TAo (n = 868) TAVR from 2011 to 2014 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital claims. Inhospital and 1-year clinical outcomes were stratified by operative risk; and the risk-adjusted association between access route and mortality, stroke, and heart failure repeat hospitalization was explored., Results: Mean age for all patients was 82.8 ± 6.8 years. The median STS predicted risk of mortality was significantly higher among patients undergoing TAo (8.8 versus 7.4, p < 0.001). When compared with TA, TAo was associated with an increased risk of unadjusted 30-day mortality (10.3% versus 8.8%) and 1-year mortality (30.3% versus 25.6%, p = 0.006). There were no significant differences between TAo and TA for inhospital stroke rate (2.2%), major vascular complications (0.3%), and 1-year heart failure rehospitalizations (15.7%). Examination of high-risk and inoperable subgroups showed that 1-year mortality was significantly higher for TAo patients classified as inoperable (p = 0.012)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing TAo TAVR are older, more likely female, and have significantly higher STS predicted risk of mortality scores than patients operated on by TA access. There were no risk-adjusted differences between TA and TAo access in mortality, stroke, or readmission rates as long as 1 year after TAVR., (Copyright © 2015 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A detailed assessment of calcium within the aortic root may provide important additional information regarding the risk of aortic root injury during transcatheter heart valve replacement (TAVR)., Objective: We sought to delineate the effect of calcium volume and distribution on aortic root injury during TAVR., Methods: Thirty-three patients experiencing aortic root injury during TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve were compared with a control group of 153 consecutive TAVR patients without aortic root injury (as assessed by post-TAVR multidetector CT). Using commercial software to analyze contrast-enhanced pre-TAVR CT scans, calcium volume was determined in 3 regions: (1) the overall left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT), extending 10 mm down from the aortic annulus plane; (2) the upper LVOT, extending 2 mm down from the annulus plane; and (3) the aortic valve region., Results: Calcium volumes in the upper LVOT (median, 29 vs 0 mm(3); P < .0001) and overall LVOT (median, 74 vs 3 mm(3); P = .0001) were higher in patients who experienced aortic root injury compared with the control group. Calcium in the aortic valve region did not differ between groups. Upper LVOT calcium volume was more predictive of aortic root injury than overall LVOT calcium volume (area under receiver operating curve [AUC], 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.86 vs AUC, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.82; P = .010). Upper LVOT calcium below the noncoronary cusp was significantly more predictive of aortic root injury compared to calcium underneath the right coronary cusp or the left coronary cusp (AUC, 0.81 vs 0.68 vs 0.64). Prosthesis oversizing >20% (likelihood ratio test, P = .028) and redilatation (likelihood ratio test, P = .015) improved prediction of aortic root injury by upper LVOT calcium volume., Conclusion: Calcification of the LVOT, especially in the upper LVOT, located below the noncoronary cusp and extending from the annular region, is predictive of aortic root injury during TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve., (Copyright © 2015 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to clarify the clinical and echocardiographic prognostic implication of myocardial injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: The clinical significance of cardiac biomarker elevation after TAVR remains unclear., Methods: Patients treated with TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial were divided into tertiles (T1, T2, T3) based on the difference between the values on post-procedure day 1 and the baseline values of 2 cardiac biomarkers: cardiac troponin I (ΔcTnI); and creatine kinase-myocardial band (ΔCK-MB) fraction. Patients were stratified according to their access route: transfemoral (TF) (n = 1,840) or transapical (TA) (n = 1,173)., Results: At 30 days after TF-TAVR, patients in the highest tertile (T3) of cardiac biomarker elevation had a higher rate of all-cause mortality (ΔcTnI: T3: 5.4% vs. T1: 0.5%, p = 0.006; ΔCK-MB: T3: 5.7% vs. T1: 0.9%, p = 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality (ΔcTnI: T3: 4.9% vs. T1: 0.5%, p = 0.01; ΔCK-MB: T3: 3.9% vs. T1: 0.5%, p = 0.02). At 1 year, only patients in the highest CK-MB tertile had higher rates of all-cause (25.4% vs. 16.8%, p = 0.02) and cardiovascular (10.3% vs. 5.0%) mortality. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that greater release of cardiac biomarkers was independently associated with increased mortality in the TF population. After TA-TAVR, being in the highest tertile of cardiac biomarker elevation had no influence on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes at 30 days and 1 year., Conclusions: After TF-TAVR, a greater degree of myocardial injury was associated with higher rates of 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. At 1 year, being in the highest tertile of ΔCK-MB was correlated with a higher rate of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Finally, the level of myocardial injury after TA-TAVR had no impact on clinical and echocardiographic outcomes., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using a balloon-expandable valve is an accepted alternative to surgical replacement for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in high risk or inoperable patients. Intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) offers real-time imaging guidance throughout the procedure and allows for rapid and accurate assessment of complications and procedural results. The value of intraprocedural TEE for TAVR will likely increase in the future as this procedure is performed in lower surgical risk patients, who also have lower risk for general anesthesia, but a greater expectation of optimal results with lower morbidity and mortality. This imaging compendium from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trials is intended to be a comprehensive compilation of intraprocedural complications imaged by intraprocedural TEE and diagnostic tools to anticipate and/or prevent their occurrence., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine whether outcomes for transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) differ between the randomized controlled trial (RCT) and the subsequent NRCA (Nonrandomized Continued Access) registry of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) trial., Background: The PARTNER RCT demonstrated that TAVR with the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) is noninferior to surgery in high-risk patients and superior to standard therapy for inoperable patients., Methods: The inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection, monitoring, and core laboratories were the same for the RCT and NRCA registry. Baseline characteristics, procedural results, and 1-year outcomes were compared between patients undergoing TF-TAVR as part of the RCT and as part of the NRCA registry., Results: In the RCT, 415 patients underwent TF-TAVR, whereas in the NRCA, 1,023 patients did. At 30 days, death, cardiac death, stroke, and transient ischemic attacks were not different in the NRCA registry than in the RCT. Major vascular complications (8.0% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.0001) and major bleeding (6.8% vs. 15.3%, p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the NRCA registry. At 1 year, death rates were significantly lower in the NRCA cohort (19.0% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.009) and cardiac death tended to be lower (8.4% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.12). Stroke or transient ischemic attack (6.2% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.10) and stroke alone (5.0% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.13) also tended to be lower., Conclusions: The large NRCA registry demonstrates further improvement in procedural and longer-term outcomes after TF-TAVR when compared with the favorable results from the PARTNER RCT. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We describe our experience using the Edwards Sapien transfemoral Retroflex 3 catheter delivery system for transcatheter aortic valve replacement through the transapical and transaortic approaches. Transthoracic transcatheter valve replacement by the transapical and transaortic approaches can be safely and effectively performed with the Retroflex 3 delivery catheter, which affords several advantages over other available delivery devices., (Copyright © 2014 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine whether a less-invasive approach to aortic valve replacement (AVR) improves clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with aortic stenosis (AS)., Background: Diabetes is associated with increased morbidity and mortality after surgical AVR for AS., Methods: Among treated patients with severe symptomatic AS at high risk for surgery in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial, we examined outcomes stratified according to diabetes status of patients randomly assigned to receive transcatheter or surgical AVR. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year., Results: Among 657 patients enrolled in PARTNER who underwent treatment, there were 275 patients with diabetes (145 transcatheter, 130 surgical). There was a significant interaction between diabetes and treatment group for 1-year all-cause mortality (p = 0.048). Among diabetic patients, all-cause mortality at 1 year was 18.0% in the transcatheter group and 27.4% in the surgical group (hazard ratio: 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.36 to 0.99]; p = 0.04). Results were consistent among patients treated via transfemoral or transapical routes. In contrast, among nondiabetic patients, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 1 year (p = 0.48). Among diabetic patients, the 1-year rates of stroke were similar between treatment groups (3.5% transcatheter vs. 3.5% surgery; p = 0.88), but the rate of renal failure requiring dialysis >30 days was lower in the transcatheter group (0% vs. 6.1%; p = 0.003)., Conclusions: Among patients with diabetes and severe symptomatic AS at high risk for surgery, this post-hoc stratified analysis of the PARTNER trial suggests there is a survival benefit, no increase in stroke, and less renal failure from treatment with transcatheter AVR compared with surgical AVR. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an emerging technology for the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). First reported in 2002, TAVR has made remarkable progress in the past decade with completion of major randomized clinical trials, multiple observational registries, and evolution of several new devices. This article is a brief introductory overview of the TAVR procedure, devices, trials and registries, and newer developments in the field.

Background: The effect of preoperative mitral regurgitation (MR) on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is controversial. This study sought to examine the impact of moderate and severe MR on outcomes after TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Methods and Results: Data were drawn from the randomized Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) Trial cohort A patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing either TAVR (n=331) or SAVR (n=299). Both TAVR and SAVR patients were dichotomized according to the degree of preoperative MR (moderate/severe versus none/mild). At baseline, moderate or severe MR was reported in 65 TAVR patients (19.6%) and 63 SAVR patients (21.2%). At 30 days, among survivors who had isolated SAVR/TAVR, moderate/severe MR had improved in 25 SAVR patients (69.4%) and 30 TAVR patients (57.7%), was unchanged in 10 SAVR patients (27.8%) and 19 TAVR patients (36.5%), and worsened in 1 SAVR patient (2.8%) and 4 TAVR patients (5.8%; all P=NS). Mortality at 2 years was higher in SAVR patients with moderate or severe MR than in those with mild or less MR (49.8% versus 28.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.96; P=0.04). In contrast, MR severity at baseline did not affect mortality in TAVR patients (37.0% versus 32.7%, moderate/severe versus none/mild; hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.78; P=0.58; P for interaction=0.05)., Conclusions: Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with a significant early improvement in MR in survivors. However, moderate or severe MR at baseline was associated with increased 2-year mortality after SAVR but not after TAVR. TAVR may be a reasonable option in selected patients with combined aortic and mitral valve disease., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Background: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial demonstrated similar survival after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR, respectively) in high-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction on clinical outcomes after TAVR and SAVR and the impact of aortic valve replacement technique on LV function., Methods and Results: The PARTNER trial randomized high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to TAVR or SAVR. Patients were stratified by the presence of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. All-cause mortality was similar for TAVR and SAVR at 30-days and 1 year regardless of baseline LV function and valve replacement technique. In patients with LV dysfunction, mean LVEF increased from 35.7±8.5% to 48.6±11.3% (P<0.0001) 1 year after TAVR and from 38.0±8.0% to 50.1±10.8% after SAVR (P<0.0001). Higher baseline LVEF (odds ratio, 0.90 [95% confidence interval, 0.86, 0.95]; P<0.0001) and previous permanent pacemaker (odds ratio, 0.34 [95% confidence interval, 0.15, 0.81]) were independently associated with reduced likelihood of ≥10% absolute LVEF improvement by 30 days; higher mean aortic valve gradient was associated with increased odds of LVEF improvement (odds ratio, 1.04 per 1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval, 1.01, 1.08]). Failure to improve LVEF by 30 days was associated with adverse 1-year outcomes after TAVR but not SAVR., Conclusions: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction, mortality rates and LV functional recovery were comparable between valve replacement techniques. TAVR is a feasible alternative for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and LV dysfunction who are at high risk for SAVR., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the main baseline and procedural characteristics, management, and clinical outcomes of patients from a large cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) who suffered coronary obstruction (CO)., Background: Very little data exist on CO following TAVI., Methods: This multicenter registry included 44 patients who suffered symptomatic CO following TAVI of 6,688 patients (0.66%). Pre-TAVI computed tomography data was available in 28 CO patients and in a control group of 345 patients (comparisons were performed including all patients and a cohort matched 1:1 by age, sex, previous coronary artery bypass graft, transcatheter valve type, and size)., Results: Baseline and procedural variables associated with CO were older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p < 0.001), no previous coronary artery bypass graft (p = 0.043), the use of a balloon-expandable valve (p = 0.023), and previous surgical aortic bioprosthesis (p = 0.045). The left coronary artery was the most commonly involved (88.6%). The mean left coronary artery ostia height and sinus of Valsalva diameters were lower in patients with obstruction than in control subjects (10.6 ± 2.1 mm vs. 13.4 ± 2.1 mm, p < 0.001; 28.1 ± 3.8 mm vs. 31.9 ± 4.1 mm, p < 0.001). Differences between groups remained significant after the case-matched analysis (p < 0.001 for coronary height; p = 0.01 for sinus of Valsalva diameter). Most patients presented with persistent severe hypotension (68.2%) and electrocardiographic changes (56.8%). Percutaneous coronary intervention was attempted in 75% of the cases and was successful in 81.8%. Thirty-day mortality was 40.9%. After a median follow-up of 12 (2 to 18) months, the cumulative mortality rate was 45.5%, and there were no cases of stent thrombosis or reintervention., Conclusions: Symptomatic CO following TAVI was a rare but life-threatening complication that occurred more frequently in women, in patients receiving a balloon-expandable valve, and in those with a previous surgical bioprosthesis. Lower-lying coronary ostium and shallow sinus of Valsalva were associated anatomic factors, and despite successful treatment, acute and late mortality remained very high, highlighting the importance of anticipating and preventing the occurrence of this complication., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Functional capacity as assessed by 6-minute walk test distance (6MWTD) has been shown to predict outcomes in selected cohorts with cardiovascular disease. To evaluate the association between 6MWTD and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) among participants in the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER valve (PARTNER) trial, TAVI recipients (n = 484) were stratified into 3 groups according to baseline 6MWTD: unable to walk (n = 218), slow walkers (n = 133), in whom 6MWTD was below the median (128.5 meters), and fast walkers (n = 133) with 6MWTD >128.5 meters. After TAVI, among fast walkers, follow-up 6MWTD decreased by 44 ± 148 meters at 12 months (p <0.02 compared with baseline). In contrast, among slow walkers, 6MWTD improved after TAVI by 58 ± 126 meters (p <0.001 compared with baseline). Similarly, among those unable to walk, 6MWTD distance increased by 66 ± 109 meters (p <0.001 compared with baseline). There were no differences in 30-day outcomes among 6MWTD groups. At 2 years, the rate of death from any cause was 42.5% in those unable to walk, 31.2% in slow walkers, and 28.8% in fast walkers (p = 0.02), driven primarily by differences in noncardiac death. In conclusion, among high-risk older adults undergoing TAVI, baseline 6MWTD does not predict procedural outcomes but does predict long-term mortality. Nonetheless, patients with poor baseline functional status exhibit the greatest improvement in 6MWTD. Additional work is required to identify those with poor functional status who stand to benefit the most from TAVI., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We report the case of an 81-year-old woman with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, extremely significant peripheral arterial disease, and obstructive coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention via a transaxillary conduit immediately before a trans-apical transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed with a transfemoral device. After deployment of the transcatheter heart valve, there was a left main coronary obstruction and the patient required an emergent PCI. This multifaceted case clearly underlines the importance of a well functioning heart team including the interventional cardiologist, the cardiovascular surgeon, and the echocardiographer., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study investigated the determinants and outcomes of acute insertion of a second transcatheter prosthetic valve (TV) within the first (TV-in-TV) or transcatheter valve embolization (TVE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TAVR failure can occur with both TV-in-TV and TVE as a consequence of TAVR malpositioning. Only case reports and limited series pertaining to these complications have been reported to date., Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial Edwards SAPIEN Transcatheter Heart Valve) randomized trial (cohorts A and B) and accompanying registries were studied. Data were dichotomized for those with and without TV-in-TV or TVE, respectively., Results: From a total of 2,554 consecutive patients, 63 (2.47%) underwent TV-in-TV and 26 (1.01%) TVE. The indication for TV-in-TV was significant aortic regurgitation in most patients, often due not only to malpositioning but also to leaflet dysfunction. Despite similar aortic valve function on follow-up echoes, TV-in-TV was an independent predictor of 1-year cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 3.38, p = 0.041), with a nonsignificant trend toward greater all-cause mortality (HR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.33, p = 0.15). Technical and anatomical reasons accounted for most cases of TVE. A multivariable analysis found TVE to be an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (HR: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.34 to 5.36, p = 0.0055) but not cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.48 to 3.52, p = 0.60)., Conclusions: Acute TV-in-TV and TVE are serious sequelae of TAVR, often resulting in multiple valve implants. They carry an excess of mortality and are caused by anatomic and technical factors, which may be avoidable with judicious procedural planning., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic root rupture is a major concern with balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to identify predictors of aortic root rupture during balloon-expandable TAVR by using multidetector computed tomography., Methods and Results: Thirty-one consecutive patients who experienced left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT)/annular/aortic contained/noncontained rupture during TAVR were collected from 16 centers. A caliper-matched sample of 31 consecutive patients without annular rupture, who underwent pre-TAVR multidetector computed tomography served as a control group. Multidetector computed tomography assessment included short- and long-axis diameters and cross-sectional area of the sinotubular junction, annulus, and LVOT, and the presence, location, and extent of calcification of the LVOT, as well. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in any preoperative clinical and echocardiographic variables. Aortic root rupture was identified in 20 patients and periaortic hematoma in 11. Patients with root rupture had a higher degree of subannular/LVOT calcification quantified by the Agatston score (181.2±211.0 versus 22.5±37.6, P<0.001), and a higher frequency of ≥20% annular area oversizing (79.4% versus 29.0%, P<0.001) and balloon postdilatation (22.6% versus 0.0%, P=0.005). In conditional logistic regression analysis for the matched data, moderate/severe LVOT/subannular calcifications (odds ratio, 10.92; 95% confidence interval, 3.23-36.91; P<0.001) and prosthesis oversizing ≥20% (odds ratio, 8.38; 95% confidence interval, 2.67-26.33; P<0.001) were associated with aortic root contained/noncontained rupture., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that LVOT calcification and aggressive annular area oversizing are associated with an increased risk of aortic root rupture during TAVR with balloon-expandable prostheses. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Background: The prognosis and treatment of patients with low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis are controversial., Methods and Results: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial randomized patients with severe aortic stenosis to medical management versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; inoperable cohort) and surgical aortic valve replacement versus TAVR (high-risk cohort). Among 971 patients with evaluable echocardiograms (92%), LF (stroke volume index ≤35 mL/m(2)) was observed in 530 (55%); LF and low ejection fraction (<50%) in 225 (23%); and LF, low ejection fraction, and low mean gradient (<40 mm Hg) in 147 (15%). Two-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with LF compared with those with normal stroke volume index (47% versus 34%; hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.89; P=0.006). In the inoperable cohort, patients with LF had higher mortality than those with normal flow, but both groups improved with TAVR (46% versus 76% with LF and 38% versus 53% with normal flow; P<0.001). In the high-risk cohort, there was no difference between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. In patients with paradoxical LF and low gradient (preserved ejection fraction), TAVR reduced 1-year mortality from 66% to 35% (hazard ratio, 0.38; P=0.02). LF was an independent predictor of mortality in all patient cohorts (hazard ratio, ≈1.5), whereas ejection fraction and gradient were not., Conclusions: LF is common in severe aortic stenosis and independently predicts mortality. Survival is improved with TAVR compared with medical management and similar with TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. A measure of flow (stroke volume index) should be included in the evaluation and therapeutic decision making of patients with severe aortic stenosis., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT0053089.4.

Objectives: The aim of the current Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand the understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection., Background: A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous., Methods and Results: Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and noninterventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that need to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances and arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for the evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for the quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints., Conclusions: This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of the study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to TAVI and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair)., (Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of the current Valvular Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 initiative was to revisit the selection and definitions of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)- clinical endpoints to make them more suitable to the present and future needs of clinical trials. In addition, this document is intended to expand understanding of patient risk stratification and case selection., Background: A recent study confirmed that VARC definitions have already been incorporated into clinical and research practice and represent a new standard for consistency in reporting clinical outcomes of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. However, as the clinical experience with this technology has matured and expanded, certain definitions have become unsuitable or ambiguous., Methods and Results: Two in-person meetings (held in September 2011 in Washington, DC, USA, and in February 2012 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands) involving VARC study group members, independent experts (including surgeons, interventional and non-interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, neurologists, geriatric specialists, and clinical trialists), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives, provided much of the substantive discussion from which this VARC-2 consensus manuscript was derived. This document also provides an overview of risk assessment and patient stratification that needed to be considered for accurate patient inclusion in studies. Working groups were assigned to define the following clinical endpoints: mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, conduction disturbances & arrhythmias, and a miscellaneous category including relevant complications not previously categorized. Furthermore, comprehensive echocardiographic recommendations are provided for evaluation of prosthetic valve (dys)function. Definitions for quality of life assessments are also reported. These endpoints formed the basis for several recommended composite endpoints., Conclusions: This VARC-2 document has provided further standardization of endpoint definitions for studies evaluating the use of TAVI, which will lead to improved comparability and interpretability of study results, supplying an increasingly growing body of evidence with respect to transcatheter aortic valve implantation and/or surgical aortic valve replacement. This initiative and document can furthermore be used as a model during current endeavors of applying definitions to other transcatheter valve therapies (for example, mitral valve repair).

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of frailty in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for symptomatic aortic stenosis., Background: Frailty status impacts prognosis in older adults with heart disease; however, the impact of frailty on prognosis after TAVR is unknown., Methods: Gait speed, grip strength, serum albumin, and activities of daily living status were collected at baseline and used to derive a frailty score among patients who underwent TAVR procedures at a single large-volume institution. The cohort was dichotomized on the basis of median frailty score into frail and not frail groups. The impact of frailty on procedural outcomes (stroke, bleeding, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, and mortality at 30 days) and 1-year mortality was evaluated., Results: Frailty status was assessed in 159 subjects who underwent TAVR (age 86 ± 8 years, Society of Thoracic Surgery Risk Score 12 ± 4). Baseline frailty score was not associated with conventionally ascertained clinical variables or Society of Thoracic Surgery score. Although high frailty score was associated with a longer post-TAVR hospital stay when compared with lower frailty score (9 ± 6 days vs. 6 ± 5 days, respectively, p = 0.004), there were no significant crude associations between frailty status and procedural outcomes, suggesting adequacy of the standard selection process for identifying patients at risk for periprocedural complications after TAVR. Frailty status was independently associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 3.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 8.5, p = 0.007) after TAVR., Conclusions: Frailty was not associated with increased periprocedural complications in patients selected as candidates to undergo TAVR but was associated with increased 1-year mortality after TAVR. Further studies will evaluate the independent value of this frailty composite in older adults with aortic stenosis., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to perform a weighted meta-analysis to determine the rates of major outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC) definitions and to evaluate their current use in the literature., Background: Recently, the published VARC definitions have helped to add uniformity to reporting outcomes after TAVR., Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from January 1, 2011, through October 12, 2011, was conducted using predefined criteria. We included studies reporting at least 1 outcome using VARC definitions., Results: A total of 16 studies including 3,519 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled estimate rates of outcomes were determined according to VARC's definitions: device success, 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.7% to 95.5%); all-cause 30-day mortality, 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5% to 11.1%); myocardial infarction, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.2% to 2.0%); acute kidney injury stage II/III, 7.5% (95% CI: 5.1% to 11.4%); life-threatening bleeding, 15.6% (95% CI: 11.7% to 20.7%); major vascular complications, 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6% to 16.4%); major stroke, 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1% to 4.8%); and new permanent pacemaker implantation, 13.9% (95% CI: 10.6% to 18.9%). Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis use was associated with a significant higher rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation compared with the Edwards prosthesis (28.9% [95% CI: 23.0% to 36.0%] vs. 4.9% [95% CI: 3.9% to 6.2%], p < 0.0001). The 30-day safety composite endpoint rate was 32.7% (95% CI: 27.5% to 38.8%) and the 1-year total mortality rate was 22.1% (95% CI: 17.9% to 26.9%)., Conclusions: VARC definitions have already been used by the TAVR clinical research community, establishing a new standard for reporting clinical outcomes. Future revisions of the VARC definitions are needed based on evolving TAVR clinical experiences., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery. The outcomes beyond 1 year in such patients are not known., Methods: We randomly assigned patients to transfemoral TAVR or to standard therapy (which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty). Data on 2-year outcomes were analyzed., Results: A total of 358 patients underwent randomization at 21 centers. The rates of death at 2 years were 43.3% in the TAVR group and 68.0% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001), and the corresponding rates of cardiac death were 31.0% and 62.4% (P<0.001). The survival advantage associated with TAVR that was seen at 1 year remained significant among patients who survived beyond the first year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.92; P=0.02 with the use of the log-rank test). The rate of stroke was higher after TAVR than with standard therapy (13.8% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01), owing, in the first 30 days, to the occurrence of more ischemic events in the TAVR group (6.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.02) and, beyond 30 days, to the occurrence of more hemorrhagic strokes in the TAVR group (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.16). At 2 years, the rate of rehospitalization was 35.0% in the TAVR group and 72.5% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001). TAVR, as compared with standard therapy, was also associated with improved functional status (P<0.001). The data suggest that the mortality benefit after TAVR may be limited to patients who do not have extensive coexisting conditions. Echocardiographic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradient, with no worsening of paravalvular aortic regurgitation., Conclusions: Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.).

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the technical success and clinical outcomes of an adjunctive crossover balloon occlusion technique (CBOT) combined with the 10-F Prostar percutaneous closure device (PCD) on the incidence of vascular and bleeding complications in patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Background: Vascular closure following large-vessel access has most commonly been performed using a surgical cut-down and repair procedure., Methods: Between November 2008 and September 2010, 58 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent TAVI via a retrograde femoral artery approach using the Edwards-SAPIEN transcatheter valve. Among these patients, 56 were treated with a CBOT using the "pre-close" technique and the 10-F Prostar system. The technical success of this new CBOT and the 30-day frequency of clinical events, including all-cause mortality, major vascular complications, and major bleeding (defined according to a modified version of the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria), were assessed., Results: Successful closure was obtained in all but 3 patients (94.6%). The 30-day frequencies of mortality, major vascular complications, and major bleeding were 7.1%, 14.3%, and 5.4% respectively. No deaths were directly related to access site complications. Fourteen patients (25%) received at least 1 transfusion during the index hospitalization, of which 8 (57.1%) were not related to vascular complications. The mean and median hospital lengths of stay were 7.8 and 6.0 days., Conclusions: This new percutaneous adjunctive CBOT combined with the Prostar PCD resulted in controlled, safe, and successful percutaneous closure in most patients after TAVI., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming a reality in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis and high or prohibitive risk for standard surgical management. Current understanding of the potential adverse events associated with this procedure is limited. Risks associated with TAVI differ from those related to surgical valve replacement and include vascular injury; stroke; cardiac injury such as heart block, coronary obstruction, and cardiac perforation; paravalvular leak; and valve misplacement. The clinical experience of multiple centers experience with different valve implantation systems and techniques was reviewed. Awareness of how complications occur might help in their avoidance, recognition, and management. Ultimately, improved understanding of the potential complications associated with TAVI might help improve outcomes and allow wider application of this therapy.

There is significant interest in developing transcatheter therapy for valvular heart disease (VHD). Numerous devices have been developed for the percutaneous treatment of pulmonary and aortic stenosis as well as mitral regurgitation. Several of these devices have progressed to randomized clinical trials. These ongoing trials for aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation will provide important insights into the durability of these therapies as well as the results following standard surgical repair. The field of transcatheter valve therapy is rapidly evolving, and this review aims to summarize the current status of the field.

Objective: Determine if the iCoapsys device could be accurately and safely implanted using a novel transcatheter system., Background: Functional mitral regurgitation is a ventricular disease characterized by mitral insufficiency in the absence of structural valve abnormalities. It occurs in the presence of ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. The Coapsys (surgical) transventricular device, currently undergoing randomized evaluation, offers a more integrated treatment strategy., Methods: The iCoapsys transcatheter mitral valve repair system was developed for percutaneous delivery of an implant designed to emulate the surgical (i.e. Coapsys) device. Nine operators tested the ability of this novel catheter system to successfully deliver and position the iCoapsys implant in 12 adult sheep., Results: Post mortem evaluation in this acute model demonstrated precise percutaneous delivery and implantation in all 12 animals using fluoroscopic, coronary angiographic, and epicardial echo guidance. There was no excessive bleeding, hemodynamic compromise or sustained arrhythmias., Conclusions: A novel transcatheter methodology was developed to consistently deliver and accurately position the iCoapsys implant. The percutaneous iCoapsys system was successfully implanted without complication in this acute animal model series., ((c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)