Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an established, guideline-endorsed treatment for severe aortic stenosis. Precise sizing of the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with the aortic annulus is facilitated by increasing its diameter in 1·5 mm increments, compared with the usual 3 mm increments in valve size. The LANDMARK trial aimed to show non-inferiority of the Myval THV series compared with the contemporary THVs Sapien Series (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) or Evolut Series (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA)., Methods: In this prospective, multinational, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial across 31 hospitals in 16 countries (Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, and Brazil), 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Myval THV or a contemporary THV. Eligibility was primarily decided by the heart team in accordance with 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. As per the criteria of the third Valve Academic Research Consortium, the primary endpoint at 30 days was a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), acute kidney injury (stages 2-4), major vascular complications, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and conduction system disturbances resulting in a permanent pacemaker implantation. Non-inferiority of the study device was tested in the intention-to-treat population using a non-inferiority margin of 10·44% and assuming an event rate of 26·10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04275726, and EudraCT, 2020-000137-40, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Jan 6, 2021, and Dec 5, 2023, 768 participants with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis were randomly assigned, 384 to the Myval THV and 384 to a contemporary THV. 369 (48%) participants had their sex recorded as female, and 399 (52%) as male. The mean age of participants was 80·0 years (SD 5·7) for those treated with the Myval THV and 80·4 years (5·4) for those treated with a contemporary THV. Median Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were the same in both groups (Myval 2·6% [IQR 1·7-4·0] vs contemporary 2·6% [1·7-4·0]). The primary endpoint showed non-inferiority of the Myval (25%) compared with contemporary THV (27%), with a risk difference of -2·3% (one-sided upper 95% CI 3·8, p non-inferiority <0·0001). No significant difference was seen in individual components of the primary composite endpoint., Interpretation: In individuals with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis, the Myval THV met its primary endpoint at 30 days., Funding: Meril Life Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests NvR reports grant funding and personal fees from Abbott; grants from Philips, Biotronik, and Medtronic; and personal fees from MicroPort, Bayer, and RainMed Medical outside the submitted work. IJA-S reports being a proctor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Meril Life Sciences. AIj reports consulting fees from Meril Life Sciences, Medtronic, Angiocare, Keystone Heart, PulseCath, Salveo, Abbott, Philips, Fysicon, Cardiawave, Pi Medical, and Svelte. DU reports lecture and educational event fees from Medtronic; a lecture fee from and being a proctor for Meril Life Sciences; and being a member of the Medtronic EMEA surgical advisory board. RSH reports grant funding from Bayer; and speaker fees from Amgen, Novartis, and Abbott outside the submitted work. MW reports institutional research funding from Emboline, Meril Life Sciences, Edwards Lifesciences, and TransAortic Medical. MPa reports honoraria from Boston Scientific, Philips, and Abbott. OA reports research grants and lecture fees from and being a proctor for Abbott; and advisory board participation for and support for attending meetings from Meril Life Sciences. W-KK reports honoraria or consultancy fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Meril Life Sciences, and Hi-D Imaging; and participation on an advisory board or data and safety monitoring board for Abbott and Boston Scientific. JR reports being a consultant with Medtronic and Qatma; being a proctor for Medtronic; and travel support for attending meetings from Meril Life Sciences, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. AT reports a grant from the Fukuda Foundation for Medical Technology. SG reports honoraria or consultancy fees from Biosensors. PWS reports consultancy fees from SMT, Novartis, Meril Life Sciences, Xeltis, and Philips. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Aims: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The effect of transcatheter interventions to treat PVR after the index TAVI was investigated., Methods and Results: A registry of consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter intervention for ≥ moderate PVR after the index TAVI at 22 centers. The principal outcomes were residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and mortality at 1 year after PVR treatment. A total of 201 patients were identified: 87 (43%) underwent redo-TAVI, 79 (39%) plug closure, and 35 (18%) balloon valvuloplasty. Median TAVI-to-re-intervention time was 207 (35; 765) days. The failed valve was self-expanding in 129 (63.9%) patients. The most frequent devices utilized were a Sapien 3 valve for redo-TAVI (55, 64%), an AVP II as plug (33, 42%), and a True balloon for valvuloplasty (20, 56%). At 30 days, AR ≥ moderate persisted in 33 (17.4%) patients: 8 (9.9%) after redo-TAVI, 18 (25.9%) after plug, and 7 (21.9%) after valvuloplasty (P = 0.036). Overall mortality was 10 (5.0%) at 30 days and 29 (14.4%) at 1 year: 0, 8 (10.1%), and 2 (5.7%) at 30 days (P = 0.010) and 11 (12.6%), 14 (17.7%), and 4 (11.4%) at 1 year (P = 0.418), after redo-TAVI, plug, and valvuloplasty, respectively. Regardless of treatment strategy, patients in whom AR was reduced to ≤ mild had lower mortality at 1 year compared with those with AR persisting ≥ moderate [11 (8.0%) vs. 6 (21.4%); P = 0.007]., Conclusion: This study describes the efficacy of transcatheter treatments for PVR after TAVI. Patients in whom PVR was successfully reduced had better prognosis. The selection of patients and the optimal PVR treatment modality require further investigation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest J.G.W.: consultant to, and has received research funding from, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. W-K.K.: proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences. M.A-W.: received speaker's honoraria and/or consultancy fees on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. M.B.: consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. L.S.: consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. C.H.: Advisory Board Medtronic. J.M. Sinning: speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. J.S.: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. M. Andreas: proctor/consultant/speaker for Edwards, Abbott, and Medtronic, received institutional grants (Edwards, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI). Dr. M. Guerrero: research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. F. Castriota: proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. T.N.: consulting or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Consulting and equity with Venus MedTech. T.P.: research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; speaker fees/consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, and HighLife SAS. V.C. Babaliaros: consultant to Edwards Lifesciences and equity in transmural system. M.M.: consultant fee from Abbott, Boston, Kardia, and Medtronic. N.V.M.: institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath BV and institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. A.L.: institutional research/grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. D.H-S.: proctor and advisory to Boston, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. R.M. received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences Corporation; he is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Cordis, and Medtronic and holds equity in Entourage Medical. All other authors have no conflict of interest to report in relation with this manuscript., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV., Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91])., Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm 2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm 2 ; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176)., Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Kim is a proctor for and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Abdel-Wahab has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees to the hospital on his behalf from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hamm is an advisory board member for Medtronic. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Andreas is a proctor, consultant, and speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Medtronic; and has received institutional grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and LSI. Dr Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Nazif is a consultant for or has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and is a consultant for and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Latib has received institutional research and grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) or self-expandable valves (SEVs) as well as the impact of center valve preference on these outcomes are limited., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of TAVR procedures using third-generation BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Methods: In a multicenter registry (n = 17), 13 centers exhibited valve preference (66.6%-90% of volume) and were included. Outcomes were compared between BEVs and SEVs stratified by center valve preference., Results: In total, 7,528 TAVR procedures (3,854 with SEVs and 3,674 with BEVs) were included. The mean age was 81 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.2. Baseline characteristics were similar between BEVs and SEVs. Need for pacemaker implantation was higher with SEVs at BEV- and SEV-dominant centers (17.8% vs 9.3% [P < 0.001] and 12.7% vs 10.0% [P = 0.036], respectively; HR: 1.51; P for interaction = 0.021), risk for cerebrovascular accident was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant but not SEV-dominant centers (3.6% vs 1.1% [P < 0.001] and 2.2% vs 1.4% [P = 0.162]; HR: 2.08; P for interaction < 0.01). Aortic regurgitation greater than mild was more frequent with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers and similar with BEVs regardless of center dominance (5.2% vs 2.8% [P < 0.001] and 3.4% vs 3.7% [P = 0.504], respectively). Two-year mortality was higher with SEVs at BEV-dominant centers but not at SEV-dominant centers (21.9% vs 16.9% [P = 0.021] and 16.8% vs 16.5% [P = 0.642], respectively; HR: 1.20; P for interaction = 0.032)., Conclusions: Periprocedural outcomes, aortic regurgitation greater than mild, and 2-year mortality are worse when TAVR is performed using SEVs at BEV-dominant centers. Outcomes are similar regardless of valve type at SEV-dominant centers. The present results stress the need to account for this factor when comparing BEV and SEV outcomes. (The Aortic+Mitral Transcatheter [AMTRAC] Valve Registry; NCT04031274)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Van Miegham has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received advisory fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Ancora, Medtronic, PulseCath BV, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Barbanti has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Grasso is a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr De Backer has received research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Andreas is a proctor for Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic. Dr Estévez-Loureiro is a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences; and is a proctor for Abbott. Dr Søndergaard has received consulting fees and/or institutional research support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Amat-Santos is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Finkelstein is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are now both used to treat aortic stenosis in patients in whom life expectancy may exceed valve durability. The choice of initial bioprosthesis should therefore consider the relative safety and efficacy of potential subsequent interventions., Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare TAVR in failed transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) versus surgical aortic valves (SAVs)., Methods: Data were collected on 434 TAV-in-TAV and 624 TAV-in-SAV consecutive procedures performed at centers participating in the Redo-TAVR international registry. Propensity score matching was applied, and 330 matched (165:165) patients were analyzed. Principal endpoints were procedural success, procedural safety, and mortality at 30 days and 1 year., Results: For TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV, procedural success was observed in 120 (72.7%) versus 103 (62.4%) patients (p = 0.045), driven by a numerically lower frequency of residual high valve gradient (p = 0.095), ectopic valve deployment (p = 0.081), coronary obstruction (p = 0.091), and conversion to open heart surgery (p = 0.082). Procedural safety was achieved in 116 (70.3%) versus 119 (72.1%) patients (p = 0.715). Mortality at 30 days was 5 (3%) after TAV-in-TAV and 7 (4.4%) after TAV-in-SAV (p = 0.570). At 1 year, mortality was 12 (11.9%) and 10 (10.2%), respectively (p = 0.633). Aortic valve area was larger (1.55 ± 0.5 cm 2 vs. 1.37 ± 0.5 cm 2 ; p = 0.040), and the mean residual gradient was lower (12.6 ± 5.2 mm Hg vs. 14.9 ± 5.2 mm Hg; p = 0.011) after TAV-in-TAV. The rate of moderate or greater residual aortic regurgitation was similar, but mild aortic regurgitation was more frequent after TAV-in-TAV (p = 0.003)., Conclusions: In propensity score-matched cohorts of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV patients, TAV-in-TAV was associated with higher procedural success and similar procedural safety or mortality., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Kim has received proctor or speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards; and is an Advisory Board member for Biotronik. Dr. Sondergaard has received consultant fees and institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. Dr. Redwood is a proctor for and has received lecture fees from Edwards. Dr. Hamm is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria and research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Wood is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sathananthan is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Schofer has received speaker fees and travel compensation from Boston Scientific; and has received travel compensation from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr. Leipsic is a consultant to Circle CVI and Edwards Lifesciences; and provides institutional core laboratory services to Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Neovasc. Dr. Andreas is a proctor for Edwards and Abbott; and is an Advisory Board member for Medtronic. Dr. Guerrero has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Castriota is a proctor for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kodali has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and JenaValve; has received personal fees from Meril Lifesciences; has received personal fees from and holds equity in Admedus; and holds equity in Supira, Microinterventional Devices, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve. Dr. Conradi is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Neovasc, and JenaValve. Dr. Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotrace, and Baylis Medical; and has received consulting fees from and holds equity in Venus Medtech. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Biotronik; and has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific and Biotronik. Dr. Babaliaros is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences; and holds equity in Transmural Systems. Dr. Van Mieghem has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and PulseCath; and has received institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Latib has received institutional research or grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Hildick-Smith is a proctor and adviser to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess coronary accessibility after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR using multidetector computed tomography., Background: Expanding TAVR to patients with longer life expectancy may involve more frequent bioprosthetic valve failure and need for redo TAVR. Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging, particularly as the leaflets from the initial transcatheter heart valve (THV) will form a neo-skirt following TAVR-in-TAVR., Methods: In 45 patients treated with different combinations of CoreValve and Evolut (CV/EV) THVs with supra-annular leaflet position and SAPIEN THVs with intra-annular leaflet position, post-TAVR-in-TAVR multidetector computed tomographic scans were analyzed to examine coronary accessibility., Results: After TAVR-in-TAVR, the coronary arteries originated below the top of the neo-skirt in 90% of CV/EV-first cases compared with 67% of SAPIEN-first cases (p = 0.009). For these coronary arteries originating below the top of the neo-skirt, the distance between the THV and the aortic wall was <3 mm in 56% and 25% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.035). Coronary access may be further complicated by THV-THV stent frame strut misalignment in 53% of CV/EV-in-CV/EV cases. The risk for technically impossible coronary access was 27% and 10% in CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.121). Absence of THV interference with coronary accessibility can be expected in 8% and 33% of CV/EV-first and SAPIEN-first cases, respectively (p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR may be challenging in a significant proportion of patients. THVs with intra-annular leaflet position or low commissural height and large open cells may be preferable in terms of coronary access after TAVR-in-TAVR., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. De Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr. Kim has been a proctor for and has received speaking fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Thomas Pilgrim has received institutional research grants and speaking fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for HighLife SAS. Dr. Barbanti has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Nombela-Franco has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Kofoed has received institutional grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine McKinney Møllers Fond, the John and Birthe Meyer Foundation, The Research Council of Rigshopitalet, the University of Copenhagen, the Danish Heart Foundation, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation by The Danish Council for Strategic Research, and Canon Medical Corporation. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed. Dr. Sinning has received speaking honoraria and research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Webb has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Prof. Dr. Søndergaard has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Symetis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV., Methods and Results: A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2-12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01-1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11-1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis-patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31-14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36-10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26-8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78)]., Conclusions: The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR., Methods: The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively., Results: Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm 2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm 2 ; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively., Conclusions: Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation performance in rapid deployment (ViVr) vs. conventional (ViVc) surgical heart valves., Methods and Results: A multicentre registry was developed as part of the VIVID international registry. A total of 30 ViVr patients (Perceval, n=24, ATS 3f Enable™, n=5, and the INTUITY, n=1) were evaluated and compared with 2,288 ViVc patients. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to adjust further for bias. Compared with ViVc, ViVr patients presented twice as early after surgical heart valve (SHV) implantation (55.2±36.1 vs. 118.4±57.7 months, p<0.001), were more commonly female (82.8% vs. 41.3%, p<0.001), and had shorter body stature and reduced body weight (p<0.05 for both) prior to PS. Implantation was successful in all ViVr cases and, compared with ViVc, was associated with equally favourable haemodynamic outcomes (mean gradient: 14.6±8.3 vs. 16.2±8.9 mmHg, p=0.356; regurgitation ≥mild: 3.7% vs. 5.2%, p=0.793). Periprocedural complication rates were similar and low in both groups. There was no coronary obstruction event in any ViVr case; one patient (3.6%) died during one year of follow-up., Conclusions: ViVr appears effective, safe and associated with favourable haemodynamic outcome.