Search

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.)

Background and Aims: This trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction., Methods: This pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board., Results: Sixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all [100%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 94%-100.0%, P < .001] patients. Procedure time, including imaging confirmation of leaflet splitting, was 30.6 ± 17.9 min. Freedom from the primary safety endpoint was achieved in 59 [98.3%; 95% CI (91.1%-100%)] patients, with no mortality and one (1.7%) disabling stroke. At 30 days, freedom from coronary obstruction was 95% (95% CI 86.1%-99.0%). Within 90 days, freedom from mortality was 95% [95% CI (86.1%-99.0%)], without any cardiovascular deaths., Conclusions: Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favourable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Conduction disturbances requiring a permanent pacemaker (PPM) are a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with few reports of rates, predictors, and long-term clinical outcomes following implantation of the third-generation, balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) transcatheter heart valve (THV)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the rates, predictors, and long-term clinical outcomes of PPM implantation following TAVR with the S3 THV., Methods: The current study included 857 patients in the PARTNER 2 S3 registries with intermediate and high surgical risk without prior PPM, and investigated predictors and 5-year clinical outcomes of new PPM implanted within 30 days of TAVR., Results: Among 857 patients, 107 patients (12.5%) received a new PPM within 30 days after TAVR. By multivariable analysis, predictors of PPM included increased age, pre-existing right bundle branch block, larger THV size, greater THV oversizing, moderate or severe annulus calcification, and implantation depth >6 mm. At 5 years (median follow-up 1,682.0 days [min 2.0 days, max 2,283.0 days]), new PPM was not associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality (Adj HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.85-1.70; P = 0.30) or repeat hospitalization (Adj HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.67-2.21; P = 0.52). Patients with new PPM had a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year that persisted at 5 years (55.1 ± 2.55 vs 60.4 ± 0.65; P = 0.02)., Conclusions: PPM was required in 12.5% of patients without prior PPM who underwent TAVR with a SAPIEN 3 valve in the PARTNER 2 S3 registries and was not associated with worse clinical outcomes, including mortality, at 5 years. Modifiable factors that may reduce the PPM rate include bioprosthetic valve oversizing, prosthesis size, and implantation depth., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER 2 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr R.T. Hahn reports speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthineers; she has institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Anteris, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis; she is Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for multiple industry-sponsored valve trials, for which she receives no direct industry compensation. P Pibarot has received institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, Cardiac Success, Roche Diagnostics for echocardiography core laboratory analyses, blood biomarker analyses, and research studies in the field of interventional and pharmacologic treatment of valvular heart diseases, for which he received no personal compensation. Dr George has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Zhao is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Blanke has institutional core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, PI Cardia, and Conformal; he is a Consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Laralab Imaging. Dr Babaliaros has received consulting fees from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Szeto has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and is a consultant for MicroInterventional Devices. Dr Makkar has received research support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; and consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Thourani serves on advisory boards for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, Cryolife, Jenavalve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Michael Mack served as co-primary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial for Abbott; and served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee for Edwards Lifesciences (unpaid); has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has been an unpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Sinomed, and Medtronic; and holds equity in Medinol. 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 Nazif has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Teleflex. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Adequate valve performance after surgical mitral valve repair with an annuloplasty ring is not always sustained over time. The risk of repeat mitral valve surgery may be high in these patients. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-ring (MViR) is emerging as an alternative for high-risk patients., Objectives: The authors sought to assess contemporary outcomes of MViR using third-generation balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves., Methods: Patients who underwent MViR and were enrolled in the STDS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry between August 2015 and December 2022 were analyzed., Results: A total of 820 patients underwent MViR at 236 sites, mean age was 72.2 ± 10.4 years, 50.9% were female, mean STS score was 8.2% ± 6.9%, and most (78%) were in NYHA functional class III to IV. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 47.8% ± 14.2%, mean mitral gradient was 8.9 ± 7.0 mm Hg, and 75.5% had ≥ moderate mitral regurgitation. Access was transseptal in 93.9% with 88% technical success. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 8.3%, and at 1 year, 22.4%, with a reintervention rate of 9.1%. At 1-year follow-up, 75.6% were NYHA functional class I to II, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score increased by 25.9 ± 29.1 points, mean mitral valve gradient was 8.4 ± 3.4 mm Hg, and 91.7% had ≤ mild mitral regurgitation., Conclusions: MViR with third-generation balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves is associated with a significant reduction in mitral regurgitation and improvement in symptoms at 1 year, but with elevated valvular gradients and a high reintervention rate. MViR is a reasonable alternative for high-risk patients unable undergo surgery who have appropriate anatomy for the procedure. (STS/ACC TVT Registry Mitral Module [TMVR]; NCT02245763)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures As this analysis was restricted to the Edwards Lifesciences SAPIEN 3, SAPIEN 3 Ultra, and SAPIEN 3 Ultra Resilis transcatheter heart valves, statistical analyses were performed by Edwards Lifesciences. The views or opinions presented here do not represent those of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), or the STS/ACC TVT Registry. Dr Guerrero has received institutional research grant support from Abbott Structural Heart and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bapat has received speaker/consultancy fees and research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and 4C Medical. Dr Mahoney has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Eng has served as a clinical proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Yadav has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic Inc., Abbott Vascular, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Coylewright has received research funding from Boston Scientific and Edwards Lifesciences; and consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Occlutech, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. 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) U.S. 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 Szerlip has served as National Principal Investigator for trial sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences; has served on steering committees for trials by Abbott and Medtronic; and has served as speaker for Medtronic, Abbott, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Nazif has received consulting fees or honoraria from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Opsens Medical, Teleflex, and Encompass Technologies and institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Kodali is a consultant for Admedus, Meril Lifesciences, JenaValve, Abbott Vascular; and has equity in Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, and Admedus. Dr. George has served as a consultant for Cardiomech, Atricure, Valcare Medical, Mitremedical, Ethicon, Zimmer Biomet, Durvena, and Vdyne. Drs Greenbaum and Babaliaros have received institutional research support from Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore Medical, Jena Valve, Medtronic, Polares Medical, Transmural Systems, and 4C Medical; received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and have equity interest in Transmural Systems. Dr Whisenant has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani has been an advisor for Abbott Vascular, ARtivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Shockwave. Dr McCabe has served as a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular System Inc; and has equity in ConKay Medical. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High surgical risk may preclude mitral valve replacement in many patients. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transfemoral transseptal access is a novel technology for the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) in high-risk surgical patients., Objectives: This analysis evaluates 30-day and 1-year outcomes of the Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study in patients with ≥moderate-severe MR., Methods: The Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study is a multicenter, prospective, single-arm study. Clinical events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee; endpoints were defined according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria., Results: A total of 33 patients, enrolled at 9 U.S. sites between February 2020 and August 2022, were included. The median age was 80 years, 63.6% of patients were men, and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality for mitral valve replacement was 5.3%. Thirty-one (93.9%) patients were successfully implanted. Median postprocedural hospitalization length of stay was 5 days, and 87.9% of patients were discharged to home. At 30 days, there were no deaths or strokes, 8 (24.2%) patients had major vascular complications and none required surgical intervention, there were 4 cases of venous thromboembolism all successfully treated without sequelae, and 1 patient had mitral valve reintervention for severe left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. At 1 year, the Kaplan-Meier all-cause mortality rate was 6.7%, echocardiography showed ≤mild valvular MR, there was no/trace paravalvular leak in all patients, median mitral valve mean gradient was 4.6 mm Hg (Q1-Q3: 3.9-5.3 mm Hg), and 91.7% of survivors were in NYHA functional class I/II with a median 11.4-point improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary scores., Conclusions: The early benefits of the Intrepid transfemoral transseptal TMVR system were maintained up to 1 year with low mortality, low reintervention, and near complete elimination of MR, demonstrating a favorable safety profile and durable valve function., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded by Medtronic. Dr Zahr has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Song has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Chadderdon has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and grant support from Medtronic and GE Healthcare. Dr Gada has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Bard Medical. Dr Mumtaz has received consulting fees and grant support from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and consulting fees from Z Medica and from the Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development. Dr Byrne has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular. Dr Kirshner has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Sharma has served as a proctor for Medtronic; and received research grant support from the Norton Healthcare Foundation. Dr Kodali has received consultant fees from Admedus and Dura Biotech; holds equity in Dura Biotech, Microinterventional Devices, Thubrika Aortic Valve, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, and Anona; and has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. Dr George has received consulting fees from Cardiomech, Mitremedical, Atricure, Zimmer Biomet, Durvena, and Valcare Medical. Dr Sorrajja has received grant support from Medtronic for participation in the Steering Committee of the APOLLO trial; and consulting fees from 4C Medical, Abbott Structural, Anteris, BioSense Webseter, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax, Medtronic, Phillips, Shifamed, Siemens, vDyne, W.L. Gore xDOT. Dr Bapat has received personal fees for consultancy and speaker service from Medtronic; and served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, 4C, and Boston Scientific. Dr Bajwa has received personal and institutional consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Weiss has received personal and institutional consulting fees from Medtronic and Baxter. Dr Thaden has received institutional consulting fees from Medtronic and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Ms. Gearhart is an employee of Medtronic. Dr Lim has received institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Keystone, Pipeline, Valgen, and Venus. Dr Reardon has received institutional consulting fees from Medtronic, W.L. Gore & Associates, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Adams’s institution (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai) has received royalty payments from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for intellectual property related to the development of valve repair rings; and he has served as the national co-principal investigator of the Medtronic APOLLO Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial, the NeoChord ReChord Food and Drug Administration pivotal trial, the Medtronic CoreValve US pivotal trial, and the Abbott TRILUMINATE pivotal trial. Dr Mack has served as a trial co-principal investigator for Abbott Vascular; as the study chair for Medtronic; and as a trial co–principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences (both personal and institutional). Dr Leon has received personal and institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: With increasing numbers of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), data on management of failed TAVR, including repeat TAVR procedure, are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR in a national registry., Methods: This study included all consecutive patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry from Nov 9, 2011, to Dec 30, 2022 who underwent TAVR with balloon-expandable valves in failed transcatheter heart valves (redo-TAVR) or native aortic valves (native-TAVR). Procedural, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes were compared between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR cohorts using propensity score matching., Findings: Among 350 591 patients (1320 redo-TAVR; 349 271 native-TAVR), 1320 propensity-matched pairs of patients undergoing redo-TAVR and native-TAVR were analysed (redo-TAVR cohort: mean age 78 years [SD 9]; 559 [42·3%] of 1320 female, 761 [57·7%] male; mean predicted surgical risk of 30-day mortality 8·1%). The rates of procedural complications of redo-TAVR were low (coronary compression or obstruction: four [0·3%] of 1320; intraprocedural death: eight [0·6%] of 1320; conversion to open heart surgery: six [0·5%] of 1319) and similar to native-TAVR. There was no significant difference between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR populations in death at 30 days (4·7% vs 4·0%, p=0·36) or 1 year (17·5% vs 19·0%, p=0·57), and stroke at 30 days (2·0% vs 1·9%, p=0·84) or 1 year (3·2% vs 3·5%, p=0·80). Redo-TAVR reduced aortic valve gradients at 1 year, although they were higher in the redo-TAVR group compared with the native-TAVR group (15 mm Hg vs 12 mm Hg; p<0·0001). Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation rates were similar between redo-TAVR and native-TAVR groups at 1 year (1·8% vs 3·3%, p=0·18). Death or stroke after redo-TAVR were not significantly affected by the timing of redo-TAVR (before or after 1 year of index TAVR), or by index transcatheter valve type (balloon-expandable or non-balloon-expandable)., Interpretation: Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves effectively treated dysfunction of the index TAVR procedure with low procedural complication rates, and death and stroke rates similar to those in patients with a similar clinical profile and predicted risk undergoing TAVR for native aortic valve stenosis. Redo-TAVR with balloon-expandable valves might be a reasonable treatment for failed TAVR in selected patients., Funding: Edwards Lifesciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RRM is a consultant for and received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. TC is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. PM has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. TK reports personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Medtronic and Abbott outside the submitted work. SKo reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and JenaValve; personal fees from Tricares, Triflo, Phillips, Admedus, and Dura Biotech; consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and equity from Biotrace Medical, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, Adona, Tioga, and X-Dot outside the submitted work. DLB reports serving on advisory boards for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; serving on the board of directors for American Heart Association New York City; stock options in Angiowave and DRS.LINQ; stock in Bristol Myers Squibb and High Enroll; serving as a consultant for Broadview Ventures and Hims; serving on data monitoring committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the US National Institutes of Health-funded MINT Trial); honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); serving as Deputy Editor for Clinical Cardiology; a patent for sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither DLB nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald's Heart Disease); serving as Site Co-Investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; being a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research for FlowCo and Takeda. MBL reports grants from Edwards Lifesciences during the conduct of the study. VHT reports grants from Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary artery obstruction is a life-threatening complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Current preventive strategies are suboptimal., Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe bench testing and clinical experience with a novel device that splits valve leaflets that are at risk for causing coronary obstruction after TAVR, allowing normal coronary flow., Methods: The ShortCut device was initially tested in vitro and preclinically in a porcine model for functionality and safety. The device was subsequently offered to patients at elevated risk for coronary obstruction. Risk for coronary obstruction was based on computed tomography-based anatomical characteristics. Procedure success was determined as patient survival at 30 days with a functioning new valve, without stroke or coronary obstruction., Results: Following a successful completion of bench testing and preclinical trial, the device was used in 8 patients with failed bioprosthetic valves (median age 81 years; IQR: 72-85 years; 37.5% man) at 2 medical centers. A total of 11 leaflets were split: 5 patients (63.5%) were considered at risk for left main obstruction alone, and 3 patients (37.5%) were at risk for double coronary obstruction. All patients underwent successful TAVR without evidence of coronary obstruction. All patients were discharged from the hospital in good clinical condition, and no adverse neurologic events were noted. Procedure success was 100%., Conclusions: Evaluation of the first dedicated transcatheter leaflet-splitting device shows that the device can successfully split degenerated bioprosthetic valve leaflets. The procedure was safe and successfully prevented coronary obstruction in patients at risk for this complication following TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Dvir is a consultant to Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Pi-Cardia. Dr Leon has received institutional clinical research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is a consultant and member of the steering committee for Pi-Cardia, with direct compensation in the form of stock options that can be exercised in the future. Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation. Dr Leipsic has provided computed tomography core laboratory services to Pi-Cardia. Dr Gerckens has received honoraria for clinical proctoring and/or consultancy fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Pi-Cardia. Dr Manoharan is a consultant and proctor for Medtronic, Abbott Medical, and Pi-Cardia. Dr Abdel-Wahab’s hospital has received speaker honoraria and/or consultancy fees on his behalf from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe outcomes of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in a native valve or failed bioprosthetic valve or transcatheter heart valve (THV) and a transcatheter mitral valve replacement procedure (TMVR; valve-in-valve [mViV], valve-in-ring [mViR], and valve in mitral annulus calcification [ViMAC]) either concomitantly (same procedure) or staged (different procedures)., Background: Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of concomitant or staged TAVR and TMVR procedures are largely unknown., Methods: Data were extracted from the STS/ACC TVT Registry™ for patients undergoing concomitant or staged TAVR and TMVR with SAPIEN XT, SAPIEN 3, or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Edwards Lifesciences) THVs. Descriptive results were reported for procedural, index hospitalization, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes., Results: A total of 257 patients underwent TAVR and TMVR in concomitant (n = 135) or staged (n = 122) procedures. Device success was 82.9% and 83.9% for concomitant TAVR and TMVR procedures and 83.8% and 82.5% for staged TAVR and TMVR procedures. Significant improvements in aortic and mitral valve function remained stable through 1 year. All-cause mortality for concomitant and staged groups was 14.7% and 10.5% at 30 days, and 32.8% and 24.6% at 1 year, respectively. Stroke rate for concomitant and staged groups was 0.8% and 3.6% at 30 days and 3.9% and 5.6% at 1 year, respectively. Improvements from baseline to 1 year in NYHA class and KCCQ overall summary scores were observed for all patients., Conclusions: Concomitant or staged transcatheter treatment of patients with aortic and mitral valve disease can be performed in select high-risk patients in experienced centers., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Importance: In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited., Objective: To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021., Intervention: Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years., Results: A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention., Conclusions and Relevance: Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Scarce data exist on mitral valve (MV) infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This multicenter study included a total of 579 patients with a diagnosis of definite IE after TAVI from the IE after TAVI International Registry and aimed to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, management, and outcomes of MV-IE after TAVI. A total of 86 patients (14.9%) had MV-IE. These patients were compared with 284 patients (49.1%) with involvement of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) only. Two factors were found to be associated with MV-IE: the use of self-expanding valves (adjusted odds ratio 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 5.07, p = 0.012), and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge (adjusted odds ratio 3.33; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.73, p <0.01). There were no differences in IE timing and causative microorganisms between groups, but surgical management was significantly lower in patients with MV-IE (6.0%, vs 21.6% in patients with THV-IE, p = 0.001). All-cause mortality rates at 2-year follow-up were high and similar between patients with MV-IE (51.4%, 95% CI 39.8 to 64.1) and patients with THV-IE (51.5%, 95% CI 45.4 to 58.0) (log-rank p = 0.295). The factors independently associated with increased mortality risk in patients with MV-IE were the occurrence of heart failure (adjusted p <0.001) and septic shock (adjusted p <0.01) during the index hospitalization. One of 6 IE episodes after TAVI is localized on the MV. The implantation of a self-expanding THV and the presence of an aortic regurgitation ≥2 at discharge were associated with MV-IE. Patients with MV-IE were rarely operated on and had a poor prognosis at 2-year follow-up., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to investigate the viability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with prior chest radiation therapy (cXRT)., Background: Since patients with prior cXRT perform poorly with surgical aortic valve replacement, TAVR can be a viable alternative. However, clinical outcomes after TAVR in this patient population have not been well studied., Methods: From the pooled registry of the placement of aortic transcatheter valves II trial, we identified patients with and without prior cXRT who underwent TAVR (n = 64 and 3923, respectively). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and any stroke at 2 years. Time to event analyses were shown as Kaplan-Meier event rates and compared by log-rank testing. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated and compared by Cox proportional hazards regression model., Results: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the patients with and without prior cXRT (30.7% vs. 27.0%; p = 0.75; HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.77). Rates of myocardial infarction, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, or new pacemaker implant after TAVR were not statistically different between the two groups. The rate of immediate reintervention with a second valve for aortic regurgitation after TAVR was higher among the patients with prior cXRT. However, no further difference was observed during 2 years follow-up after discharge from the index-procedure hospitalization., Conclusions: TAVR is a viable alternative for severe symptomatic AS in patients who had cXRT in the past., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at 5 years., Background: TAVR for degenerated surgical bioprostheses in patients at high risk for reoperative surgery is an important treatment option that may delay or obviate the need for surgical intervention; however, long-term outcomes of this procedure are unknown., Methods: The PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 ViV and continued access registries prospectively enrolled patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at high risk for reoperation. Five-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up data were obtained in 95.9% of patients., Results: In 365 (96 registry and 269 continued access) patients, the mean age was 78.9 ± 10.2 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of surgical mortality score was 9.1 ± 4.7%, and New York Heart Association functional class was III or IV in 90.4%. At 5 years, the Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality and any stroke were 50.6% and 10.5%, respectively. Using Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definitions, the incidence of structural valve deterioration, related hemodynamic valve deterioration, or bioprosthetic valve failure at 5 years was 6.6%. Aortic valve re-replacement was performed in 6.3% (n = 14), the majority of which was due to stenosis (n = 6) and combined aortic insufficiency/paravalvular regurgitation (n = 3). The mean gradient, Doppler velocity index, paravalvular regurgitation, and quality of life measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores in survivors remained stable from 30 days postprocedure through 5 years., Conclusions: At the 5-year follow-up, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure in high surgical risk patients was associated with sustained improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has received institutional consulting contracts for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Structural, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and Novartis, Equity with Navigate; 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 Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Highlife, Medtronic, WL Gore; has received consulting fees/speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Wells Fargo, and WL Gore; and has equity in Microinterventional Devices. Dr Leipsic has served as a consultant for and owns stock options in Circle Cardiovascular Imaging. Drs Leipsic and Blanke have received funding from Edwards Lifesciences for computed tomography core laboratory analyses in the context of transcatheter valve therapy trials with no direct compensation. Dr Blanke has served as a consultant for Tendyne, Neovasc, and Circle Cardiovascular Imaging. 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 received equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; is a national PI for Portico (Abbott) and Acurate (Boston Scientific) US IDE trials; has received personal proctoring fee from Edwards Lifesciences, and has received travel support from Edwards, Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Thourani does research and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Allergen, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore Vascular, and Jenavalve. Dr Xu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leon has received institutional research support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and consulting/advisory board participation for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Gore, Meril Lifescience, and Abbott. Dr Mack has served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and the COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic; he received no direct compensation for any of these activities. 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.)

Objectives: To assess the impact of pulmonary hypertension (PH) on outcomes of patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) undergoing transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR)., Background: PH is associated with poor outcomes after mitral valve surgery. Whether the presence of PH in patients with MAC undergoing (TMVR) is associated with poor outcomes, is unknown., Methods: Retrospective evaluation of 116 patients from 51 centers in 11 countries who underwent TMVR with valve in mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter valves (THVs) from September 2012 to March 2017. Pulmonary artery systolic blood pressure (PASP) by echocardiogram was available in 90 patients. The subjects were stratified based on PASP: No PH = PASP ≤35 mmHg (n = 11); mild to moderate PH = PASP 36-49 mmHg (n = 21) and severe PH = PASP ≥50 mmHg (n = 58). Clinical, procedural, and echocardiographic outcomes were assessed., Results: Mean age was 72.7 (±12.8) years, 59 (65.6%) were female, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 15.8 + 11.8% and 90.0% where in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days (no PH = 27.3%, mild-moderate PH = 19.0%, severe PH = 31.6%; p = 0.55) or at 1 year (no PH = 54.5%, mild-moderate PH = 38.1%, severe PH = 56.1%; p = 0.36). No difference in adverse events, NYHA class or amount of residual mitral regurgitation at 1 year were observed between the groups., Conclusion: This study suggests that the presence of PH in patients with predominantly mitral stenosis with MAC undergoing TMVR does not impact mortality or adverse events. Further studies are needed to fully understand the effect of PH in this group of patients., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Alkaptonuria is a rare condition of inborn error of metabolism. Association with aortic stenosis has been described; however, diagnosis at the time of valve replacement is infrequent. Recognition of this condition has potential management implications as the durability of prosthetic valves in such cases is unknown. We describe a case report that depicts these unique aspects., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) with transfemoral access in patients at prohibitive or high surgical risk., Background: Prohibitive surgical risk may preclude mitral valve replacement surgery in some patients. The investigational Intrepid TMVR system has previously been evaluated using transapical access for delivery of a self-expanding bioprosthetic valve., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized early feasibility study evaluated the safety and performance of the Intrepid valve using transfemoral access enabling transseptal delivery in patients with moderate to severe or severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation at high surgical risk. Candidacy was determined by heart teams, with approval by a central screening committee. Echocardiographic data were evaluated by an independent core laboratory. Clinical events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee., Results: Fifteen patients were enrolled at 6 sites from February 2020 to May 2021. The median age was 80 years, and median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 4.7%; 87% of patients were men, and 53% had undergone prior sternotomy. Fourteen implants were successful. One patient was converted to surgery during the index procedure. Patients stayed a median of 5 days postprocedure. There were 6 access site bleeds (40%) and 11 iatrogenic atrial septal defect closures (73%). At 30 days, there were no deaths, strokes, or reinterventions. All patients undergoing implantation had trace or no valvular or paravalvular mitral regurgitation, and the mean gradient was 4.7 mm Hg (IQR: 3.0-6.7 mm Hg)., Conclusions: Thirty-day results from the Intrepid transfemoral TMVR early feasibility study demonstrate excellent valve function and no mortality or stroke. Additional patients and longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings. ([The Early Feasibility Study of the Intrepid™ TMVR Transseptal System]; NCT02322840)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded by Medtronic. Dr Zahr has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Song has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Chadderdon has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received grant support from Medtronic and GE Healthcare. Dr Gada has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Bard Medical. Dr Mumtaz has received consulting fees and grant support from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Z Medica and from the Japanese Organization for Medical Device Development. Dr Byrne has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular. Dr Bajwa has received personal and institutional consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr Weiss has received personal and institutional consulting fees from Medtronic and Baxter. Dr Kodali has received consultant fees from Admedus and Dura Biotech; holds equity in Dura Biotech, Microinterventional Devices, Thubrika Aortic Valve, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, and Anona; and has received institutional grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. Dr George has received consulting fees from Cardiomech, Mitremedical, Atricure, Zimmer Biomet, Durvena, and Valcare Medical. Dr Thaden has received institutional consulting fees from Medtronic and speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Ms Zhang is an employee of Medtronic. Dr Lim has received institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Keystone, Pipeline, Valgen, and Venus. Dr Reardon has received institutional consulting fees from Medtronic, W.L. Gore & Associates, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Adams reports that the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai receives royalty payments from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic for intellectual property related to the development of valve repair rings; serves as the national co–principal investigator of the Medtronic APOLLO FDA pivotal trial, the NeoChord ReChord FDA pivotal trial, the Medtronic CoreValve US pivotal trial, and the Abbott TRILUMINATE pivotal trial. Dr Mack serves as a trial co–principal investigator for Abbott Vascular, as the study chair for Medtronic, and as a trial co–principal investigator for Edwards Lifesciences (both personal and institutional). Dr Leon has received personal and institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, 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: Staphylococcus aureus (SA) has been extensively studied as causative microorganism of surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce evidence exists on SA IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods: Data were obtained from the Infectious Endocarditis After TAVR International Registry, including patients with definite IE after TAVR from 59 centres in 11 countries. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to microbiologic etiology: non-SA IE vs SA IE., Results: SA IE was identified in 141 patients out of 573 (24.6%), methicillin-sensitive SA in most cases (115/141, 81.6%). Self-expanding valves were more common than balloon-expandable valves in patients presenting with early SA IE. Major bleeding and sepsis complicating TAVR, neurologic symptoms or systemic embolism at admission, and IE with cardiac device involvement (other than the TAVR prosthesis) were associated with SA IE (P < 0.05 for all). Among patients with IE after TAVR, the likelihood of SA IE increased from 19% in the absence of those risk factors to 84.6% if ≥ 3 risk factors were present. In-hospital (47.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001) and 2-year (71.5% vs 49.6%; P < 0.001) mortality rates were higher among patients with SA IE vs non-SA IE. Surgery at the time of index SA IE episode was associated with lower mortality at follow-up compared with medical therapy alone (adjusted hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.96; P = 0.038)., Conclusions: SA IE represented approximately 25% of IE cases after TAVR and was associated with very high in-hospital and late mortality. The presence of some features determined a higher likelihood of SA IE and could help to orientate early antibiotic regimen selection. Surgery at index SA IE was associated with improved outcomes, and its role should be evaluated in future studies., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to investigate the impact of computed tomography (CT)-based area and perimeter oversizing on the incidence of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and valve hemodynamics in patients treated with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (THV)., Background: The incremental value of considering annular perimeter or left ventricular outflow tract measurements and the impact of THV oversizing on valve hemodynamics are not well defined., Methods: The PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) trial included 495 low-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent THV implantation. THV sizing was based on annular area assessed by CT. Area- and perimeter-based oversizing was determined using systolic annular CT dimensions and nominal dimensions of the implanted THV. PVR, effective orifice area, and mean gradient were assessed on 30-day transthoracic echocardiography., Results: Of 485 patients with available CT and echocardiography data, mean oversizing was 7.9 ± 8.7% for the annulus area and 2.1 ± 4.1% for the perimeter. A very low incidence of ≥moderate PVR (0.6%) was observed, including patients with minimal annular oversizing. Incidence of ≥mild PVR and need for procedural post-dilatation were inversely related to the degree of oversizing. For patients with annular dimensions suitable for 2 THV sizes, the larger THV with both area and perimeter oversizing was associated with the lowest incidence of ≥mild PVR (12.0% vs 43.4%; P < 0.0001). Left ventricular outflow tract area oversizing was not associated with PVR. THV prosthesis size, rather than degree of oversizing, had greatest impact on effective orifice area and mean gradient., Conclusions: In low-surgical-risk patients, a low incidence of ≥moderate PVR was observed, including patients with minimal THV oversizing. The degree of prosthesis oversizing had the greatest impact on reducing mild PVR and incidence of post-dilatation, without impacting valve hemodynamics. In selected patients with annular dimensions in between 2 valve sizes, the larger THV device oversized to both the annular area and perimeter reduced PVR and optimized THV hemodynamics., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Recently, observational data have raised concerns about safety of selfexpandable (SE) compared to balloon-expandable (BE) valves in TAVI, although potentially limited by patient selection bias., Methods: All Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing BE vs. SE TAVI or/and vs. aortic valve replacement (AVR) were included and compared through Network Meta Analysis (NMA). All-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality were the primary endpoints, stroke, rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and reintervention were the secondary endpoints. Results We obtained data from 11 RCTs, encompassing 9752 patients. After one and two years, no significant differences for allcause and CV mortality were observed. Compared to surgical bioprostheses, both BE and SE TAVI reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (OR 0.42; CI 95% 0.30-0.60 and OR 0.44; CI 95% 0.32-0.60), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.24; CI 95% 0.14-0.42 and OR 0.21; CI 95% 0.13-0.34) and major bleedings (OR 0.32; CI 95% 0.16-0.65 and OR 0.47; CI 95% 0.25-0.89). The BE prostheses reduced the risk of moderate/severe PVL at 30-day (OR 0.31; CI 95% 0.17-0.55) and of PPI both at 30-day (OR 0.51; CI 95% 0.33-0.79) and 1 year (OR 0.40; CI 95% 0.30-0.55) as compared to SE TAVI. Conclusions A TAVI strategy, independently from BE or SE prostheses, offers a midterm survival comparable to AVR. The BE prostheses are associated with a reduction of PPI and PVL compared to SE prostheses without any differences in all-cause and CV mortality during two years of follow up. PROSPERO ID CRD42020182407., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between Doppler velocity index (DVI) and 2-year outcomes for balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: DVI >0.35 is normal for a prosthetic valve, but recent studies suggest that DVI <0.50 is associated with poor outcomes following TAVR., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2 (intermediate surgical risk) or PARTNER 3 (low surgical risk) trial undergoing TAVR (n = 1,450) or SAVR (n = 1,303) were included. Patients were divided into 3 DVI groups on the basis of core laboratory-assessed discharge or 30-day echocardiograms: DVI LOW (≤0.35), DVI INTERMEDIATE (>0.35 to ≤0.50), and DVI HIGH (>0.50). Two-year outcomes were assessed., Results: Following TAVR, there were no differences among the 3 DVI groups in composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization or in any individual components of 2-year outcomes (P > 0.70 for all). Following SAVR, there was no difference among DVI groups in the composite outcome (P = 0.27), but there was a significant association with rehospitalization (P = 0.02). Restricted cubic-spline analysis for combined outcomes showed an increased risk with post-SAVR DVI ≤0.35 but no relationship post-TAVR. DVI ≤0.35 was associated with increased 2-year composite outcome for SAVR (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.29-2.54; P < 0.001), with no adverse outcomes for TAVR (P = 0.86)., Conclusions: In intermediate- and low-risk cohorts of the PARTNER trials, DVI ≤0.35 predicted worse 2-year outcomes following SAVR, driven primarily by rehospitalization, with no adverse outcomes associated with DVI following TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Philips Healthcare; has received consulting fees from Abbott Structural, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Navigate; has received nonfinancial support from 3mensio; holds equity with Navigate; 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 Thourani has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as an adviser for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Jaber has echocardiography core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Leipsic has received grant support from Abbott and Medtronic; has received consulting fees and stock options from Circle Cardiovascular Imaging; and provides cardiac computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne, Medtronic, and Abbott, for which he does not receive any direct compensation. Dr Thourani does research and is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Allergen, Boston Scientific, CryoLife, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore Vascular, and JenaValve. Dr Makkar has received grant support from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kodali has received equity from BioTrace Medical, Dura Biotech, and Thubrikar Aortic Valve; has received grant support from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; has received grant support and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from Claret Medical, Admedus, and Meril Life Sciences. Dr Clavel has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Khalique has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Abbott. Dr Weissman has core laboratory contracts with Abbott, Neovasc, Ancora, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Biotronik, and LivaNova, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Blanke has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne (Abbott), Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Neovasc, and Gore; and provides cardiac computed tomography core laboratory services for Edwards Lifesciences, Tendyne, Medtronic, and Abbott, for which he does not receive any direct compensation. Dr Chen is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack is the co–principal investigator of the PARTNER 3 Trial (Edwards Lifesciences); is the co–principal investigator of the COAPT trial (Abbott); and is study chair of the APOLLO trial (Medtronic), all uncompensated. Dr Leon has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; and has received advisory board fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Gore, and Meril Life Sciences. Dr Pibarot holds the Canada Research Chair in Valvular Heart Diseases; has a Foundation Scheme Grant (FDN-143225) from Canadian Institutes of Health Research; has a grant from the Foundation of the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute; and has echocardiography core laboratory contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study aimed to compare incidence and impact of measured prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM M ) versus predicted PPM (PPM P ) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: TAVR studies have used measured effective orifice area indexed (EOAi) to body surface area (BSA) to define PPM, but most SAVR series have used predicted EOAi. This difference may contribute to discrepancies in incidence and outcomes of PPM between series., Methods: The study analyzed SAVR patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2A trial and TAVR patients from the PARTNER 2 SAPIEN 3 Intermediate Risk registry. PPM was classified as moderate if EOAi ≤0.85 cm 2 /m 2 (≤0.70 if obese: body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ) and severe if EOAi ≤0.65 cm 2 /m 2 (≤0.55 if obese). PPM M was determined by the core lab-measured EOAi on 30-day echocardiogram. PPM P was determined by 2 methods: 1) using normal EOA reference values previously reported for each valve model and size (PPM P1 ; n = 929 SAVR, 1,069 TAVR) indexed to BSA; and 2) using normal reference EOA predicted from aortic annulus size measured by computed tomography (PPM P2 ; n = 864 TAVR only) indexed to BSA. Primary endpoint was the composite of 5-year all-cause death and rehospitalization., Results: The incidence of moderate and severe PPM P was much lower than PPM M in both SAVR (PPM P1 : 28.4% and 1.2% vs. PPM M : 31.0% and 23.6%) and TAVR (PPM P1 : 21.0% and 0.1% and PPM P2 : 17.0% and 0% vs. PPM M : 27.9% and 5.7%). The incidence of severe PPM M and severe PPM P1 was lower in TAVR versus SAVR (P < 0.001). The presence of PPM by any method was associated with higher transprosthetic gradient. Severe PPM P1 was independently associated with events in SAVR after adjustment for sex and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio: 3.18;95% CI: 1.69-5.96; P < 0.001), whereas no association was observed between PPM by any method and outcomes in TAVR., Conclusions: EOAi measured by echocardiography results in a higher incidence of PPM following SAVR or TAVR than PPM based on predicted EOAi. Severe PPM P is rare (<1.5%), but is associated with increased all-cause death and rehospitalization after SAVR, whereas it is absent following TAVR., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER II trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Pibarot has echo core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation. Dr Leipsic holds institutional computed tomography core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic; and has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Clavel has a computed tomography core lab contract with Edwards Lifesciences, for which he receives no direct compensation; and has received research grant support from Medtronic. Dr Khalique has received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Abbas has served on the on the Speakers Bureau and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Hahn has echo core lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, for which she receives no direct compensation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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: Mitral annular calcification (MAC) has been associated with mitral valve (MV) disease and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to investigate the incidence and impact of mitral calcium volume (MCV) quantified by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) on MV function and clinical outcomes after TAVI., Methods: Consecutive patients with exploitable echocardiography and MDCT performed during TAVI screening were enrolled in this retrospective analysis. Mitral calcium was assessed visually and measured using a semi-automatic tool developed for the aortic valve in an off-label fashion., Results: MCV >0 mm 3 was found in 65% of the 875 included patients. Patients with calcification were older (82 ± 6 versus 81 ± 7; P = 0.002) and had high prevalence of renal dysfunction (69% versus 61%; P = 0.017) and mitral stenosis (25% versus 4%, P < 0.001). MCV correlated well with visual MAC severity (r = 0.94; P < 0.001), but showed a greater predictive value for mitral stenosis (AUC = 0.804 vs. 0.780, P = 0.012) , while it was not a predictor of mitral regurgitation (AUC = 0.514). Correlations were found between MCV and echocardiographic parameters including MV area, mean transmitral gradient, and pressure half-time (P < 0.001 for all). MCV did not impact on cardiovascular mortality or new permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI., Conclusions: Calcification of the mitral apparatus is common in TAVI candidates and results in mitral stenosis in 25% of the patients. Increasing MCV predicts mitral stenosis, but had no impact on clinical outcomes following TAVI., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01368250., (Copyright © 2020 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. PVR continues to plague TAVR jeopardizing long-term results. New device iterations, such as the self-expandable Evolut PRO valve, aim to decrease PVR while maintaining optimal hemodynamics. This study sought to evaluate clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Evolut PRO system at 3 years., Methods: The Evolut PRO US Clinical Study included 60 patients at high or extreme surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 centers in the United States. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 criteria and included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke and valve complications. An independent core laboratory centrally assessed all echocardiographic measures., Results: At 3 years, all-cause mortality was 25.8% (cardiovascular mortality 16.5%) and the disabling stroke rate was 10.7%. There were no cases of repeat valve intervention, endocarditis or coronary obstruction. Valve thrombosis was identified in 1 patient 2 years post-procedure and was treated medically. Hemodynamics at 3 years included a mean gradient of 7.2 ± 4.5 mm Hg, an effective orifice area of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm 2 , and 88.2% of patients had no or trace PVR. The remaining patients had mild PVR. Most of the surviving patients (80.6%) had New York Heart Association class I symptoms at 3 years., Conclusion: Outcomes at 3-years following TAVR with a contemporary self-expanding prosthesis are favorable, with no signal of valve deterioration, excellent hemodynamics including very low prevalence of PVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. von Ballmoos serves as a consultant and on an advisory board to Boston Scientific and LivaNova and as a proctor for LivaNova; Dr. Reardon has received fees to his institution from Medtronic for consulting and providing educational services; Dr. Williams serves as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; as a speaker for Abbott Laboratories; and has received research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; Dr. Mangi has received speaking fees and consulting fees from Thoratec Corporation; and speaking, training, and proctoring fees from Medtronic Corporation and Edwards LifeSciences; Dr. Kleiman has received fees for providing educational services from Medtronic. Dr. Yakubov has received institutional research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and serves on an advisory board for Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Dr. Watson serves on the speakers' bureau and is a proctor for Boston Scientific, Edwards, Medtronic, and Liva Nova; Dr. Kodali has received grant/research support from Boston Scientific, Claret Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; serves on the steering committee for Claret Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Meril; holds equity in Thubrikar Aortic Valve and Dura Biotech; and received honoraria from Claret Medical and St. Jude Medical; Dr. George is a consultant for CardioMech, Vdyne, WL Gore and Atricure; Dr. Tadros is a consultant and proctor and has received research support from Medtronic and St. Jude Medical; Dr. Zorn receives consulting fees from Medtronic; Dr. Kipperman is a consultant for Medtronic; Dr. Oh is the director of the echocardiographic core laboratory for the Evolut PRO US Study; Dr. Qiao is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic, plc; Dr. Forrest has received grant support/research contracts and consultant fees/honoraria/speakers' bureau 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 © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) may be required after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Evidence on PPI prediction has largely been gathered from high-risk patients receiving first-generation valve implants. We undertook a meta-analysis of the existing literature to examine the incidence and predictors of PPI after TAVI according to generation of valve, valve type, and surgical risk., Methods and Results: We made a systematic literature search for studies with ≥100 patients reporting the incidence and adjusted predictors of PPI after TAVI. Subgroup analyses examined these features according to generation of valve, specific valve type, and surgical risk. We obtained data from 43 studies, encompassing 29 113 patients. Permanent pacemaker implantation rates ranged from 6.7% to 39.2% in individual studies with a pooled incidence of 19% (95% CI 16-21). Independent predictors for PPI were age [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.09], left bundle branch block (LBBB) (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.77), right bundle branch block (RBBB) (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.23-4.88), implantation depth (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.26), and self-expanding valve prosthesis (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.39-4.59). Among subgroups analysed according to valve type, valve generation and surgical risk, independent predictors were RBBB, self-expanding valve type, first-degree atrioventricular block, and implantation depth., Conclusions: The principle independent predictors for PPI following TAVI are age, RBBB, LBBB, self-expanding valve type, and valve implantation depth. These characteristics should be taken into account in pre-procedural assessment to reduce PPI rates. PROSPERO ID CRD42020164043., (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: 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.)

The SURTAVI trial demonstrated the noninferiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk. Most TAVI patients received an early generation device which is no longer commercially available. This analysis compares TAVI outcomes in patients that received the Evolut R valve to those of similar patients randomized to SAVR in the SURTAVI trial. The continued access study of SURTAVI (CAS) enrolled 290 patients. Of them, 252 were implanted with the 23, 26, or 29 mm Evolut R device. Propensity-score matching between this group and SURTAVI SAVR patients with annular diameter of 26 mm or less was based on 22 clinical characteristics, resulting in 197 matched pairs for analysis. The primary end point for comparison was the rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 1-year. The mean age for TAVI and SAVR patients in the propensity-score matched population was 79.1 years and STS-PROM was 4.0 ± 1.5% for TAVI and 3.9% ± 1.3% for SAVR. The rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-days significantly favored TAVI (0.5% vs 5.1%; p = 0.006). At 1-year TAVI was numerically favored (4.1% vs 8.2%; p = 0.082). In conclusion, compared with SAVR, TAVI using Evolut R had a favorable 30-day safety profile, significantly better hemodynamic performance, and a comparable 1-year rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, suggesting this may be a preferred treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study aims to establish a computed tomography (CT)-based scoring system for grading mitral annular calcification (MAC) severity and potentially aid in predicting valve embolization during transcatheter mitral valve (MV) replacement using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves., Background: Transcatheter MV replacement is emerging as an alternative treatment for patients with severe MAC who are not surgical candidates. Although cardiac CT is the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of candidates for valve-in-MAC (ViMAC), a standardized grading system to quantify MAC severity has not been established., Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of cardiac CT and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing ViMAC. A CT-based MAC score was created using the following features: average calcium thickness (mm), degrees of annulus circumference involved, calcification at one or both fibrous trigones, and calcification of one or both leaflets. Features were assigned points according to severity (total maximum score = 10) and severity grade was assigned based on total points (mild ≤3, moderate 4 to 6, and severe ≥7 points). The association between MAC score and device migration/embolization was evaluated., Results: Of 117 patients in the TMVR in MAC registry, 87 had baseline cardiac CT of adequate quality. Of these, 15 were treated with transatrial access and were not included. The total cohort included 72 (trans-septal = 37, transapical = 35). Mean patient age was 74 ± 12 years, 66.7% were female, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score was 15.4 ± 10.5%. The mean MAC score was 7.7 ± 1.4. Embolization/migration rates were lower in higher scores: Patients with a MAC score of 7 had valve embolization/migration rate of 12.5%, MAC score ≥8 had a rate of 8.7%, and a MAC score of ≥9 had zero (p = 0.023). Patients with a MAC score of ≤6 had 60% embolization/migration rate versus 9.7% in patients with a MAC score ≥7 (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, a MAC score ≤6 was in independent predictor of valve embolization/migration (odds ratio [OR]: 5.86 [95% CI: 1.00 to 34.26]; p = 0.049)., Conclusions: This cardiac CT-based score provides a systematic method to grade MAC severity which may assist in predicting valve embolization/migration during trans-septal or transapical ViMAC procedures., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis, characterized by hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion observed on 4-dimensional computed tomography (CT), may represent a form of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction., Objectives: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration mandated CT studies to understand the natural history of this finding, differences between transcatheter and surgical valves, and its association with valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes., Methods: The PARTNER 3 (The Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis) CT substudy randomized 435 patients with low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 221) or surgery (n = 214). Serial 4-dimensional CTs were performed at 30 days and 1 year and were analyzed independently by a core laboratory., Results: The incidence of HALT increased from 10% at 30 days to 24% at 1 year. Spontaneous resolution of 30-day HALT occurred in 54% of patients at 1 year, whereas new HALT appeared in 21% of patients at 1 year. HALT was more frequent in transcatheter versus surgical valves at 30 days (13% vs. 5%; p = 0.03), but not at 1 year (28% vs. 20%; p = 0.19). The presence of HALT did not significantly affect aortic valve mean gradients at 30 days or 1 year. Patients with HALT at both 30 days and 1 year, compared with those with no HALT at 30 days and 1 year, had significantly increased aortic valve gradients at 1 year (17.8 ± 2.2 mm Hg vs. 12.7. ± 0.3 mm Hg; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Subclinical leaflet thrombosis was more frequent in transcatheter compared with surgical valves at 30 days, but not at 1 year. The impact of HALT on thromboembolic complications and structural valve degeneration needs further assessment., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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.

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment strategy on health status is unknown., Objectives: This study sought to compare health status outcomes of TAVR versus surgery in low-risk patients with severe AS., Methods: Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1,000 low-risk patients with AS were randomized to transfemoral TAVR using a balloon-expandable valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQoL). The primary endpoint was change in KCCQ-OS (KCCQ Overall Summary) score over time. Longitudinal growth curve modeling was used to compare changes in health status between treatment groups over time., Results: At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than surgery (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 16.0 points; p < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, health status remained better with TAVR, although the effect was reduced (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 2.6 and 1.8 points respectively; p < 0.04 for both). The proportion of patients with an excellent outcome (alive with KCCQ-OS ≥75 and no significant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03) and 12 months (87.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.07)., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR was associated with meaningful early and late health status benefits compared with surgery., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is paucity of evidence on the impact of anticoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes., Objectives: The study aimed to assess the impact of AC after bioprosthetic AVR on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes., Methods: Data on antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy were collected. Echocardiograms were performed at 30 days and 1 year post-AVR. Linear regression model and propensity-score adjusted cox proportional model were used to assess the impact of AC on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes, respectively., Results: A total of 4,832 patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR], n = 3,889 and surgical AVR [SAVR], n = 943) in the pooled cohort of PARTNER2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized trials and nonrandomized registries were studied. Following adjustment for valve size, annular diameter, atrial fibrillation, and ejection fraction at the time of assessment of hemodynamics, there was no significant difference in aortic valve mean gradients or aortic valve areas between patients discharged on AC vs. those not discharged on AC, for either TAVR or SAVR cohorts. A significantly greater proportion of patients not discharged on AC had an increase in mean gradient >10 mm Hg from 30 days to 1 year, compared with those discharged on AC (2.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.03). There was no independent association between AC after TAVR and adverse outcomes (death, p = 0.15; rehospitalization, p = 0.16), whereas AC after SAVR was associated with significantly fewer strokes (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.60; p = 0.006)., Conclusions: In the short term, early AC after bioprosthetic AVR did not result in adverse clinical events, did not significantly affect aortic valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradients or area), and was associated with decreased rates of stroke after SAVR (but not after TAVR). Whether early AC after bioprosthetic AVR has impact on long-term outcomes remains to be determined. (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNERII A]; NCT01314313)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is approved for treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at increased risk for surgical valve replacement, but outcomes data in patients with severe native aortic regurgitation (AR) treated with TAVI remain limited. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate outcomes among patients identified in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry who underwent TAVI for native AR with a commercially available self-expanding valve system. From January 2014 to December 2017, 230 patients in the TVT Registry underwent TAVI for primary severe native AR using a commercially available self-expanding valve (n = 81, CoreValve; n = 149, Evolut R). For inclusion, AR was either pure or mixed with predominantly moderate/severe AR and mean aortic valve gradient ≤20 mm Hg. Thirty-day outcomes were evaluated using time-to-event methods. Device success was reported in 81.7% of patients (CoreValve, 72.2%; Evolut R, 86.9%; p = 0.0.01). Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 13.3%. All patients presented with moderate/severe AR at baseline; at 30 days, 9.1% of implanted patients with data continued to have moderate and 1.4% severe AR. There was a significant reduction in residual moderate/severe AR from the CoreValve to Evolut R device (19.1% vs 6.3%, p = 0.02). Multivariable analysis revealed factors associated with 30-day all-cause mortality include number of valves used (hazard ratio [HR] 2.361, 1.643 to 3.391, p <0.001), albumin < 3.3 mg/dL (HR 3.358, 1.551 to 7.273, p=0.002), and left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.978, 0.957 to 1.000, p = 0.047). Despite higher 30-day all-cause mortality, self-expanding TAVI may be an option in selected patients with AR who have no surgical options., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate SAPIEN 3 (S3) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) positioning using different strategies., Background: Aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) is associated with high risk of elevated gradients., Methods: S3 aortic ViV procedures in stented bioprostheses were studied. Transcatheter heart valve (THV) positioning was analyzed in a centralized core lab blinded to clinical outcomes. A combined endpoint of severely elevated mean gradient (≥30 mm Hg) or pacemaker need was established. Two positioning strategies were compared: central marker method and top of S3 method. Optimal final depth was defined as S3 depth ≤20%., Results: A total of 113 patients met inclusion criteria and were analyzed (76.5 ± 9.7 years of age, 65.8% male, STS score 8 ± 7.6%). THVs had incomplete shortening in comparison to fully expanded valves (92 ± 3.4%), and expansion was more complete in optimal positioning cases compared with others (93.2 ± 2.7% vs. 91.5 ± 3.5%; p = 0.027). The central marker method demonstrated greater correlation with final implantation depth than the top of S3 method (R 2 of 0.48 and 0.14; p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The combined endpoint rate was 4.3% in the optimal (higher than 3 mm) implantation group, 12% in the intermediate group, and 50% in the low group (p < 0.001). There were no cases of THV embolization. In cases with central marker higher than 3 mm, 72.4% had optimal final depth. In those with central marker higher than 6 mm, 90% had optimal final depth., Conclusions: Optimal S3 positioning in aortic ViV is associated with better outcomes. Central marker positioning is more reliable than top of S3 positioning. Central marker bottom position should be 3 mm to 6 mm above the ring., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to understand the effects of balloon post-dilatation on outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve., Background: Hemodynamics and outcomes with balloon post-dilatation for the SAPIEN 3 valve have not been previously reported., Methods: The effects of balloon post-dilatation (BPD) in 1,661 intermediate (S3i cohort) and high surgical risk (S3HR cohort) patients with aortic stenosis enrolled in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2, SAPIEN 3 observational study on outcomes, as well as procedural complications, were assessed., Results: 208 of 1,661 patients (12.5%) had BPD during the initial transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Baseline characteristics were similar except BPD had higher STS score (p < 0.001), significantly less % oversizing (p = 0.004), significantly more ≥moderate left ventricular outflow tract calcification (p = 0.005), and severe annular calcification (p = 0.006). BPD patients had no increase in permanent pacemaker, annular rupture, or valve embolization. Following transcatheter aortic valve replacement, BPD patients had significantly larger aortic valve area (1.72 ± 0.41 cm 2 vs. 1.66 ± 0.37 cm 2 ; p = 0.04) with no significant difference in prosthesis-patient mismatch (p = 0.08) or transvalvular aortic regurgitation (p = 0.65), but significantly more paravalvular regurgitation (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year outcomes of all-cause death (p = 0.65 to 0.76) or stroke (p = 0.28 to 0.72). However, at 1 year, there was a significantly higher incidence of minor stroke in BPD patients (p = 0.02). Adjusting for baseline differences, including calcium burden, minor strokes were no longer significantly different between the BPD and NoBPD groups (p = 0.21)., Conclusions: BPD is performed more frequently in patients with lower % oversizing and greater calcium burden. BPD is not associated with procedural complications or an increase in 1-year adverse events of death, rehospitalization, or stroke., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study investigated differences between transcatheter heart valve (THV) types and regarding debris captured by a cerebral embolic protection system (Claret Medical Sentinel, Santa Rosa, California)., Background: Differences of THV types and cerebral injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well understood., Methods: A total of 246 patients pooled from 2 prospective studies (SENTINEL [Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement] trial, N = 100; SENTINEL-H [Histopathology of Embolic Debris Captured During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement] trial, N = 146) were included in the analysis. Histopathologic assessment and histomorphometric analyses of debris were compared with THV types. Analyses were differentiated by particle size (≥150, ≥500, and ≥1,000 μm), particle count, total particle area, and maximum of largest dimension. Only commercially available THVs were included: 16% Evolut R (EvR), 15% Lotus, 59% SAPIEN 3 (S3), and 10% SAPIEN XT (XT)., Results: Particles were captured in 99% of patients. There was a significantly higher amount of debris related to the vascular bed (valve tissue, arterial wall, calcification) in EvR patients compared with S3 patients; 53% of all patients irrespective of valve type had at least 1 particle ≥1 mm. Larger particles (≥500 and ≥1,000 μm) were significantly more frequent in EvR than XT and S3 patients. Lotus patients with particles ≥1,000 μm were significantly more frequent than in S3 patients. Particle count, total particle area, and maximum of largest dimension were significantly higher in both Lotus and EvR patients compared with S3 and XT., Conclusions: Debris was captured in 99% of patients, of whom 53% had at least 1 particle of debris >1 mm. The number and size of particles captured during a procedure in which EvR or Lotus THV was used were higher and larger than with a Sapien THV. Regardless, embolic debris, including large particles, is universal across valve types and provides mechanistic support for the potential benefit of using cerebral embolic protection in all TAVR procedures., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR) results in improved quality of life (QoL) compared with previous-generation TAVR devices or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) results in similar QoL compared with SAVR. Compared with SAPIEN XT, the SAPIEN 3 valve offers a lower delivery profile and modifications to reduce paravalvular regurgitation., Methods: Between February and December 2014, 1,078 patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis were treated with S3-TAVR in the PARTNER S3i (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial. QoL was assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and EQ-5D. QoL outcomes of S3-TAVR patients were compared with those in the SAVR and XT-TAVR arms of the PARTNER 2A trial using propensity score stratification to adjust for differences between the treatment groups., Results: Over 1 year, S3-TAVR was associated with substantial improvements in QoL compared with baseline. At 1 month, S3-TAVR was associated with better QoL than either SAVR or XT-TAVR (adjusted differences in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score 15.6 and 3.7 points, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the differences in QoL between S3-TAVR and both SAVR and XT-TAVR were reduced but remained statistically significant (adjusted differences 2.0 and 2.2 points, respectively; p < 0.05). Similar results were seen for generic QoL outcomes., Conclusions: Among patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis, S3-TAVR resulted in improved QoL at both 1 month and 1 year compared with both XT-TAVR and SAVR., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risk of surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with severe mitral annular calcification (MAC) is high. Several patients worldwide with severe MAC have been treated successfully with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter valves. The TMVR in MAC Global Registry is a multicenter registry that collects data on outcomes of these procedures., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate 1-year outcomes in this registry., Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective review of clinical outcomes., Results: A total of 116 extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC underwent TMVR; 106 had a procedure date >1 year before data-lock and were included in the analysis. Their mean age was 73 ± 12 years, and 68% were female. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 15.3 ± 11.6%, and 90% were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality was 25% and 53.7%, respectively. Most patients who survived 30 days were alive at 1 year (49 of 77 [63.6%]), and the majority (71.8%) were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II. Echocardiography data at 1 year were available in 34 patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.6 ± 11.2%, mean mitral valve area was 1.9 ± 0.5 cm 2 , mean mitral gradient was 5.8 ± 2.2 mm Hg, and 75% had zero or trace mitral regurgitation., Conclusions: TMVR with balloon-expandable aortic valves in extreme surgical risk patients with severe MAC is feasible but associated with high 30-day and 1-year mortality. Most patients who survive the 30-day post-procedural period are alive at 1 year and have sustained improvement of symptoms and transcatheter valve performance. The role of TMVR in patients with MAC requires further evaluation in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2018 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.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the Medtronic Evolut PRO Transcatheter Aortic Valve System in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis., Background: A next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve was designed with an external pericardial wrap with the intent to reduce paravalvular leak while maintaining the benefits of a low-profile, self-expanding, and repositionable supra-annular valve., Methods: The Medtronic Evolut PRO Clinical Study included 60 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Evolut PRO valve at 8 investigational sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The 2 primary safety endpoints were the incidence of all-cause mortality at 30 days and the incidence of disabling stroke at 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with no or trace prosthetic valve regurgitation at 30 days. An independent echocardiographic core laboratory (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota) was used to adjudicate all echocardiographic assessments., Results: All 60 patients received the Evolut PRO valve. At 30 days, 1 patient (1.7%) died and 1 patient (1.7%) experienced a nonfatal disabling stroke. Paravalvular regurgitation at 30 days was absent or trace in 72.4% of patients and was mild in the remainder of patients, with no patients having worse than mild paravavlular leak. The mean atrioventricular gradient was 6.4 ± 2.1 mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.0 ± 0.5 cm 2 at 30 days., Conclusions: The safety and efficacy results of this study support the use of the Evolut PRO System for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients who are at increased surgical risk, resulting in excellent hemodynamics and minimal paravalvular leak (The Medtronic TAVR 2.0 US Clinical Study; NCT02738853)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the outcomes of commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the repositionable Evolut R platform to those observed with the CoreValve device in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Transcatheter Valve Therapy (TVT) Registry., Background: TAVR continues to evolve, with rapid adoption of iterative changes for commercial practice. Insight into the outcomes of this adoption is needed., Methods: Patients in the TVT Registry who had TAVR using a 23-, 26-, or 29-mm self-expanding prosthesis were enrolled. Site-reported events for procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day outcomes were examined., Results: Between January 2014 and April 2016, 9,616 patients underwent TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis with data entered in the TVT Registry. Compared with patients treated with CoreValve TAVR, those who received Evolut R TAVR had a lower STS-PROM score (8.0 ± 5.4% vs. 8.7 ± 5.3%; p < 0.001), more iliofemoral access (91.6% vs. 89.2%; p < 0.001), and more frequently had conscious sedation (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p < 0.001). With Evolut R TAVR, there was less need for a second prosthesis (2.2% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), less device migration (0.2% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.01), a lower incidence of moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (post-procedure, 4.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (4.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001). Patients treated with Evolut R TAVR had greater device success (96.3% vs. 94.9%; p = 0.001). At 30 days, Evolut R patients had both lower mortality (3.7% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001) and less need for a pacemaker (18.3% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.03)., Conclusions: Commercial adoption of the Evolut R platform is associated with significant improvements in acute outcomes for patients undergoing TAVR for aortic stenosis., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement. We hypothesized that direct intraoperative valve sizing results in smaller aortic annular diameters compared with sizing based on systolic-phase multidetector computerized tomographic (MDCT) imaging., Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2014 at our institution. Preoperative MDCT measurements of the aortic annulus served as basis for assignment to a theoretical surgical valve size, which was then (1) compared to the implanted valve size and (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size. To quantify the resulting differences, geometric orifice areas (GOA) were calculated. MDCT-based sizing produced the same valve size for n=34 patients (group CT-same), a larger valve with a 25% increased GOA in n=32 patients (group CT-Lg) and a smaller GOA by 22% in n=12 patients (group CT-Sm). On the basis of MDCT measurements, 41% of valves implanted were undersized. The comparison of intraoperative implanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25% larger for patients in group CT-same, 40.6% larger in group CT-Lg and 14.6% larger in group CT-Sm., Conclusions: Preoperative MDCT measurements differ substantially from direct intraoperative assessment of the aortic annulus. Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to MDCT-based sizing in 41% of patients, and the potential GOA was between 25% and 40.6% larger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of the extent of computed tomography (CT)-based area and perimeter oversizing on the incidence and severity of paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) for the Edwards SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) device, using CT data and echocardiographic outcome data of the PARTNER II (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves Trial II) SAPIEN 3 intermediate-risk cohort., Background: Transcatheter heart valve (THV) sizing algorithms are device specific, requiring refinements for new valve designs., Methods: A total of 835 intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled in a multicenter, nonrandomized registry at 57 sites in the United States and Canada with available systolic CT data and echocardiographic follow-up were included in this analysis. THV size selection was primarily CT guided based on annular area. Area-based and perimeter-based oversizing was calculated using systolic annular CT dimensions and nominal dimensions of the implanted THV size. PAR was assessed at 30 days according to a 5-class scheme., Results: Mean oversizing by area was 7.7 ± 9.4% and mean oversizing by perimeter was 1.7 ± 4.4%. An inverse proportional relationship between degree of oversizing and frequency and severity of PAR was observed for both area and perimeter oversizing. Perimeter and area oversizing confer similar predictive capacity in regard to the occurrence of PAR after THV implantation (area under the curve: 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 0.85] vs. area under the curve: 0.78 [95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 0.85]; p < 0.0001). No aortic root ruptures were observed., Conclusions: For the SAPIEN 3 THV, the frequency and extent of PAR is inversely related to the degree of oversizing with acceptable rates of PAR being achieved at lower degrees of oversizing. Perimeter and area oversizing confer similar predictive capacity in regard to the occurrence of PAR after implantation of the SAPIEN 3 THV. Therefore, the SAPIEN 3 THV may offer the opportunity to reduce the risk of annular rupture associated with more significant degrees of oversizing in borderline annular anatomy. (The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNER II]; NCT01314313)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate this transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) bioprosthesis in patients who are poorly suitable for surgical aortic valve (AV) replacement., Background: A novel self-expandable TAV bioprosthesis was designed to provide a low-profile delivery system, conformable annular sealing, and the ability to resheath and reposition during deployment., Methods: The Evolut R U.S. study included 241 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were deemed to be at least high risk for surgery treated at 23 clinical sites in the United States. Clinical outcomes at 30 days were evaluated using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. An independent echocardiography laboratory was used to evaluate hemodynamic outcomes., Results: Patients were elderly (83.3 ± 7.2 years of age) and had high surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of 7.4 ± 3.4%). The majority of patients (89.5%) were treated by iliofemoral access. Resheathing or recapturing was performed in 22.6% of patients; more than 1 valve was required in 3 patients (1.3%). The 30-day outcomes included all-cause mortality (2.5%), disabling stroke (3.3%), major vascular complications (7.5%), life-threatening or disabling bleeding (7.1%), and new permanent pacemaker (16.4%). AV hemodynamics were markedly improved at 30 days: the mean AV gradient was reduced from 48.2 ± 13.0 mm Hg to 7.8 ± 3.1 mm Hg (p < 0.001) and AV area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm 2 to 1.9 ± 0.5 cm 2 (p < 0.001). Moderate residual paravalvular leak was identified in 5.3% of patients., Conclusions: We conclude that this novel self-expanding TAV bioprosthesis is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis who are suboptimal for surgery. (Medtronic CoreValve Evolut R U.S. Clinical Study; NCT02207569)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Transcatheter heart valve (THV) implantation in failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) offers an alternative therapy for high-risk patients. Elevated post-procedural gradients are a significant limitation of aortic ViV. Our objective was to assess the relationship between depth of implantation and haemodynamics., Methods and Results: Commercially available THVs used for ViV were included in the analysis (CoreValve Evolut, SAPIEN XT and the Portico valve). THVs were implanted in small surgical valves (label size 19 mm) to simulate boundary conditions. Custom-mounted pulse duplicators registered relevant haemodynamic parameters. Twenty-eight experiments were performed (13 CVE, 5 SXT and 10 Portico). Ranges of depth of implantation were: CVE: -1.2 mm to 15.7 mm; SXT: -2.2 mm to 7.5 mm; Portico: 1.4 mm to 12.1 mm. Polynomial regression established a relationship between depth of implantation and valvular mean gradients (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.01; Portico: p=0.002), as well as with EOA (CVE: p<0.001; SXT: p=0.02; Portico valve: p=0.003). In addition, leaflet coaptation was better in the high implantation experiments for all valves., Conclusions: The current comprehensive bench testing assessment demonstrates the importance of high device position for the attainment of optimal haemodynamics during aortic ViV procedures.

Background: This study sought to evaluate the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Methods and Results: Data were evaluated in 1879 patients with baseline and discharge ECGs who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) trial. A total of 1262 patients manifested sinus rhythm (SR) at baseline/SR at discharge, 113 SR baseline/AF discharge, and 470 AF baseline/AF discharge. Patients who converted from SR to AF by discharge had the highest rates of all-cause mortality at 30 days (P<0.0001 across all groups; 14.2% SR/AF versus 2.6% SR/SR; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=3.41; P=0.0002) and over 2-fold difference at 1 year (P<0.0001 across all groups; 35.7% SR/AF versus 15.8% SR/SR; adjusted HR=2.14; P<0.0001). The presence of AF on baseline or discharge ECG was a predictor of 1-year mortality (adjusted HR=2.14 for SR/AF group and HR=1.88 for AF/AF groups; P<0.0001 for both groups versus SR/SR). For patients discharged in AF, those with lower ventricular response (ie, <90 bpm) experienced less 1-year all-cause mortality (HR=0.74; P=0.04)., Conclusions: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the presence of AF at discharge, and particularly, the conversion to AF by discharge and higher ventricular response are associated with increased mortality. These data underscore the deleterious impact of AF, as well as the need for targeted interventions to improve clinical outcomes, in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)