Search

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, B. Braun, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Fassl has received speaker fees from CSL Behring and Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. Dr Haussig has received speaker honoraria and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Linke has received grants from Novartis; personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer; and personal fees from Picardia, Transverse Medical, and Claret Medical outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR., Methods: Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR., Results: A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P < .001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P < .001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P < .001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P = .033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P < .001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P = .697)., Conclusions: Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria for speaking engagements from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. has received received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. J. M. M. has received consulting honoraria and/or research grants from Angelini, Contrafect, Cubist, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Lysovant, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. N. B. has received institutional research grants from The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Augustinus Foundation, The Kaj Hansen Foundation, and Health Insurance Denmark, outside the submitted work. N. M. has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. G. C. reports travel support from Angelini Pharma Spain to attend national and international scientific conferences. E. D.-M. reports grants or contracts from Pfizer, Angelini, Shionogi, Advanz Pharma, and Infectopharm; consulting fees from Roche, Genentech, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria for speaking engagements from Pfizer, Angelini, and Shionogi; and travel support from Biotest. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The real-world outcomes of the use of the BASILICA (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction) transcatheter technique in Europe have not been described., Aims: We sought to evaluate the procedural and one-year outcomes of BASILICA in patients at high risk for coronary artery obstruction (CAO) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in a multicentre European registry (EURO-BASILICA)., Methods: Seventy-six patients undergoing BASILICA and TAVI at ten European centres were included. Eighty-five leaflets were identified as targets for BASILICA due to high risk for CAO. The updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions were used to determine prespecified endpoints of technical and procedural success and adverse events up to one year., Results: Treated aortic valves included native (5.3%), surgical bioprosthetic (92.1%) and transcatheter valves (2.6%). Double BASILICA (for both left and right coronary cusps) was performed in 11.8% of patients. Technical success with BASILICA was achieved in 97.7% and resulted in freedom from any target leaflet-related CAO in 90.6% with a low rate of complete CAO (2.4%). Target leaflet-related CAO occurred significantly more often in older and stentless bioprosthetic valves and with higher implantation levels of transcatheter heart valves. Procedural success was 88.2%, and freedom from VARC-3-defined early safety endpoints was 79.0%. One-year survival was 84.2%; 90.5% of patients were in New York Heart Association Functional Class I/II., Conclusions: EURO-BASILICA is the first multicentre study evaluating the BASILICA technique in Europe. The technique appeared feasible and effective in preventing TAVI-induced CAO, and one-year clinical outcomes were favourable. The residual risk for CAO requires further study.

Background: Echocardiography is the primary imaging modality for diagnosis of infective endocarditis (IE) in prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) including IE after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with absent compared with evident echocardiographic signs of TAVI-IE., Methods: Patients with definite TAVI-IE derived from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry were investigated comparing those with absent and evident echocardiographic signs of IE defined as vegetation, abscess, pseudo-aneurysm, intracardiac fistula, or valvular perforation or aneurysm., Results: Among 578 patients, 87 (15.1%) and 491 (84.9%) had absent (IE-neg) and evident (IE-pos) echocardiographic signs of IE, respectively. IE-neg were more often treated via a transfemoral access with a self-expanding device and had higher rates of peri-interventional complications (eg, stroke, major vascular complications) during the TAVI procedure (P < .05 for all). IE-neg had higher rates of IE caused by Staphylococcus aureus (33.7% vs 23.2%; P = .038) and enterococci (37.2% vs 23.8%; P = .009) but lower rates of coagulase-negative staphylococci (4.7% vs 20.0%, P = .001). IE-neg was associated with the same dismal prognosis for in-hospital mortality in a multivariate binary regression analysis (odds ratio: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .55-4.12) as well as a for 1-year mortality in Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% CI: .67-1.80)., Conclusions: Even with negative echocardiographic imaging, patients who have undergone TAVI and presenting with positive blood cultures and symptoms of infection are a high-risk patient group having a reasonable suspicion of IE and the need for an early treatment initiation., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N. M. reports personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Medtronic (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott (payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker's bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), Abiomed, and Boston Scientific (consulting and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker’s bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events), outside the submitted work. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. received research grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport. A. L. reports personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer, outside the submitted work. H. C. H. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. H. L. B. reports lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. J.-M. S. reports speaker’s honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. W.-K. K. reports proctor/speaker’s fees/advisory board participation from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and ShockWave Medical, outside the submitted work. L. S. has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. O. H. reports personal fees from Boston Scientific and payments from Abbott. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: "valve-in-valve" TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is established and provides good initial clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Lacking long-term durability data baffle the expand to lower risk patients. For those purposes, the present study adds a hemodynamic 3-years follow-up., Methods: A total of 77 patients underwent VIV-TAVR for failing aortic bioprosthesis during a 7-years period. Predominant mode of failure was stenosis in 87.0%. Patients had a mean age of 79.4 ± 5.8 years and a logistic EuroSCORE of 30.8 ± 15.7%. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-PROM averaged 5.79 ± 2.63%. Clinical results and hemodynamic outcomes are reported for 30-days, 1-, 2-, and 3-years. Completeness of follow-up was 100% with 44 patients at risk after 3-years. Follow-up ranged up to 7.1 years., Results: Majority of the surgical valves were stented (94.8%) with a mean labeled size of 23.1 ± 2.3 mm and true-ID of 20.4 ± 2.6 mm. A true-ID ≤21 mm had 58.4% of the patients. Self-expanding valves were implanted in 68.8% (mean labeled size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm) and balloon-expanded in 31.2% (mean size 24.1 ± 1.8 mm). No patient died intraoperatively. Hospital mortality was 1.3% and three-years survival 57.1%. All patients experienced an initial significant dPmean-reduction to 16.8 ± 7.1 mmHg. After 3-years mean dPmean raised to 26.0 ± 12.2 mmHg. This observation was independent from true-ID or type of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-prosthesis. Patients with a true-ID ≤21 mm had a higher initial (18.3 ± 5.3 vs. 14.9 ± 7.1 mmHg; p = .005) and dPmean after 1-year (29.2 ± 8.2 vs. 13.0 ± 6.7 mmHg; p = .004). There were no significant differences in survival., Conclusions: VIV-TAVR is safe and effective in the early period. In surgical valves with a true-ID ≤21 mm inferior hemodynamic and survival outcomes must be expected. Nonetheless, also patients with larger true-IDs showed steadily increasing transvalvular gradients. This raises concern about durability., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Scarce data exist about early infective endocarditis (IE) after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Objective: The objective was to evaluate the characteristics, management, and outcomes of very early (VE) IE (≤ 30 days) after TAVR., Methods: This multicenter study included a total of 579 patients from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry who had the diagnosis of definite IE following TAVR., Results: Ninety-one patients (15.7%) had VE-IE. Factors associated with VE-IE (vs. delayed IE (D-IE)) were female gender (p = 0.047), the use of self-expanding valves (p < 0.001), stroke (p = 0.019), and sepsis (p < 0.001) after TAVR. Staphylococcus aureus was the main pathogen among VE-IE patients (35.2% vs. 22.7% in the D-IE group, p = 0.012), and 31.2% of Staphylococcus aureus infections in the VE-IE group were methicillin-resistant (vs. 14.3% in the D-IE group, p = 0.001). The second-most common germ was enterococci (34.1% vs. 24.4% in D-IE cases, p = 0.05). VE-IE was associated with very high in-hospital (44%) and 1-year (54%) mortality rates. Acute renal failure following TAVR (p = 0.001) and the presence of a non-enterococci pathogen (p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of death., Conclusion: A significant proportion of IE episodes following TAVR occurs within a few weeks following the procedure and are associated with dismal outcomes. Some baseline and TAVR procedural factors were associated with VE-IE, and Staphylococcus aureus and enterococci were the main causative pathogens. These results may help to select the more appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis in TAVR procedures and guide the initial antibiotic therapy in those cases with a clinical suspicion of IE. Very early infective endocarditis after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. VE-IE indicates very early infective endocarditis (≤30 days post TAVR). D-IE indicates delayed infective endocarditis., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

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.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr Linke has received grants from Novartis; has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer; and has stock options from Picardia, Transverse Medical, and Claret Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Kappert has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

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.)

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.

Background: The relationship between preoperative cardiac conduction abnormalities (CCA) and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation (TAVI-VIV) remains unclear. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative CCA on mortality and morbidity after TAVI-VIV and to estimate the impact of new-onset CCA on postoperative outcomes., Methods: Between 2011 and 2020, 201 patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses were qualified for TAVI-VIV procedures in two German heart centers. Cases with previously implanted permanent rhythm-controlling devices were excluded (n = 53). A total of 148 subjects met the eligibility criteria and were divided into 2 study groups according to the presence of preexisting CCA (CCA (n = 84) and non-CCA (n = 64), respectively). Early and late mortality and morbidity were evaluated. Follow-up functional status was assessed according to New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification., Results: There were no procedural deaths. TAVI-VIV related new-onset CCAs were observed in 35.8% patients. The 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation rate was 1.6% in non-CCA vs 9.5% in CCA group (p = 0.045). Preexisting right bundle-branch block (OR:5.01; 95%CI, 1.05-23.84) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR:4.55; 95%CI, 1.10-18.73) were independent predictors of new pacemaker implantation. One-year and five-year probability of survival were comparable in CCA and non-CCA groups: 90.3% vs 91.8% and 68.2% vs 74.3%, respectively. Surviving patients with preexisting and new-onset CCA had a worse functional status according to NYHA classification at follow-up., Conclusion: Preexisting and new-onset postoperative CCAs did not affect early and late mortality after TAVI-VIV procedures, however, they may have a negative impact on late functional status., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is expected to progress into younger patient populations, valve-in-TAVR (ViTAVR) may become a frequent consideration. Data on ViTAVR, however, are limited. This study investigated the outcome of ViTAVR in comparison to valve in surgical aortic valve replacement (ViSAVR), because ViSAVR is an established procedure for higher-risk patients requiring repeated aortic valve intervention. Methods and Results Clinical and procedural data of patients who underwent ViTAVR at 3 sites in the United States and Germany were retrospectively compared with data of patients who underwent ViSAVR at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. A total of 99 consecutive patients, 52.5% women, with a median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 7.2 were identified. Seventy-four patients (74.7%) underwent ViSAVR, and 25 patients (25.3%) underwent ViTAVR. Balloon-expandable devices were used in 72.7%. ViSAVR patients presented with smaller index devices (21.0 versus 26.0 mm median true internal diameter; P <0.001). Significantly better postprocedural hemodynamics (median prosthesis mean gradient, 12.5 [interquartile range, 8.8-16.2] versus 16.0 [interquartile range, 13.0-20.5] mm Hg; P =0.045) were observed for ViTAVR compared with the ViSAVR. Device success, however, was not different (79.2% and 66.2% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively; P =0.35), as were rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (16.7% versus 5.4%; P =0.1). One-year-mortality was 9.4% and 13.4% for ViTAVR and ViSAVR, respectively (log-rank P =0.38). Conclusions Compared with ViSAVR, ViTAVR provides acceptable outcomes, with slightly better hemodynamics, similar device success rates, and similar 1-year mortality.

Background: The use of bioprostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement increased substantially within the last years. In case of prosthesis failure, re-SAVR is standard of care, whereas valve-in-valve deployment of a transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve prosthesis (VinV-TFAVI) has recently emerged as an alternative. We sought to evaluate early safety, clinical efficacy, and all-cause 1-year-mortality of VinV-TFAVI and redo surgery for failing aortic bioprostheses (re-SAVR)., Methods and Results: Patients receiving either VinV-TFAVI (n = 147) or re-SAVR (n = 111) for a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis between 01/2006 and 05/2017 were included in this analysis. All-cause 1-year mortality was the primary outcome measure. Early safety and clinical efficacy according to VARC-2 endpoint definitions were evaluated at 30 days. Baseline characteristics differed significantly between both groups including age, STS-PROM, and incidence of relevant comorbidities. Re-stenosis was the predominant mode of failure in 45.9% of re-SAVR and 63.1% of VinV-TFAVI patients. The rate of "early safety" endpoints was lower with VinV-TFAVI (17.7% vs. 64.9%, p < 0.01), the rate of "clinical efficacy" endpoints was lower, e.g. better with re-SAVR (53.1% vs. 32.4%, p < 0.01). All-cause 1-year-mortality (VinV-TFAVI 8.8% vs re-SAVR 9.9%, p = 0.84) was not different. Treatment strategy was not associated with 1-year-mortality in a Cox regression analysis. The incidence of prosthesis-patient-mismatch was higher in VinV-TFAVI compared to re-SAVR., Conclusion: VinV-TFAVI represents a viable alternative for treatment of degenerated aortic bioprostheses in patients at increased surgical risk. However, in patients at low risk for reoperation, a better clinical efficacy and acceptable safety may favour re-SAVR., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Valve-in-valve implantation is an alternative to reoperation for patients with degenerated bioprostheses. This case report presents a 75-year-old woman presenting with worsening dyspnoea according New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III after she had received a Sorin Perceval® S sutureless valve due to severe aortic valve stenosis 5 years ago. Echocardiography revealed a degenerated Perceval valve with severe valvular aortic regurgitation and stenosis. After exclusion of acute infective endocarditis, an Edwards SAPIEN 3 was implanted leading to an immediate haemodynamic improvement. A cerebral protection device caught a big embolized piece of material in the left carotid artery filter. The case demonstrates that not only suture-based stented and stentless bioprostheses can be treated by a valve-in-valve strategy, but it is also feasible to treat a failed sutureless Sorin Perceval using a balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) is still in its infancy and is mainly limited to valve-in-valve or valve-in-ring implantations. We present the early experience with TMVI for severe calcified native MV stenosis., Methods: Between January 2014 and June 2015, 6 of 11 patients screened (mean age, 77.4 ± 6.3 years; 66% men) with severe native mitral valve (MV) stenosis (mean gradient [Pmean], 11.1 ± 2.1 mm Hg; mean effective orifice area [EOA], 0.9 ± 0.12 cm 2 ) underwent transcatheter MV replacement at our institution as a bailout procedure. Conventional surgical procedures were denied in all patients because of severe annular calcification and extensive comorbidities (mean logistic EuroScore, 31.4% ± 8.3%). The Edwards SAPIEN 3 (29 mm) (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) was used in all cases. Procedural access was transapical in 5 cases and concomitant to aortic valve replacement through the left atrium through a sternotomy in 1 case., Results: Initial implantation was successful in 100% of the cases. Because of early migration, 1 patient needed a valve-in-valve procedure. Postoperative echocardiography showed no residual mitral regurgitation in 4 cases (66%) and mild regurgitation in 2 cases (34%). Mean gradients were reduced to 4.2 ± 0.6 mm Hg (mean EOA, 2.8 ± 0.4 cm 2) . No patient had a stroke during hospitalization, and 30-day mortality was seen in 1 patient (17%) resulting from pneumonia., Conclusions: TMV implantation using the SAPIEN 3 aortic prosthesis in patients with heavy annular calcification is feasible and represents a reasonable bailout option for inoperable patients. However, several limitations need to be considered in this special patient population., (Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Whereas haemodynamic and echocardiographic studies suggest benefits for left ventricular (LV) function and cardiac output following reduction in LV preload by interventional edge-to-edge repair for mitral regurgitation (MR), there is limited data on volumetric and functional LV and right ventricular (RV) changes using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging., Methods and Results: Patients with moderate to severe MR and high surgical risk underwent MitraClip-implantation and CMR imaging before and within 7 days after the procedure. In addition to volumetric and flow studies, myocardial feature tracking (FT) technology for quantification of myocardial strain was applied. Twenty patients (age: 76 ± 8 years) with functional (n = 15) or degenerative MR (n = 5) with a mean logistic Euroscore I of 33 ± 16 underwent both successful MitraClip implantation and CMR imaging. MR fraction (36 ± 10 vs. 19 ± 12%; P < 0.001) and LV end-diastolic volume (115 ± 36 vs. 105 ± 41 mL/m2; P = 0.002) decreased significantly, whereas LV ejection fraction (42 ± 15 vs. 41 ± 16%, P = 0.8) and cardiac index (1.7 ± 0.5 vs. 1.8 ± 0.4 L/min/m2, P = 0.4) remained unchanged. MitraClip implantation resulted in a significant impairment of circumferential (-12.8 ± 4.8 vs. -8.2 ± 3.3; P = 0.002) and radial strain (15.4 ± 7.7 vs. 9.6 ± 5.3; P = 0.02) on basal short-axis view. On RV level, there were no significant changes in end-diastolic volume (83 ± 19 vs. 84 ± 18 mL/m2, P = 0.8), ejection fraction (42 ± 9 vs. 43 ± 11%, P = 0.8), or tricuspid regurgitation fraction (24 ± 17 vs. 25 ± 19%, P = 0.7). MitraClip implantation led to a significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (patients in functional class III-IV pre 100% vs. post 45%; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: In severely compromised patients, marked reduction in MR by MitraClip implantation might not result in immediate improved cardiac output and effective biventricular forward flow., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a feasible and effective therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high operative risk or relative contraindications for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, as with every new technology, a number of potential pitfalls and limitations have to be addressed and future opportunities have to be clarified in well-conducted clinical trials and well-monitored registries. Procedural issues are still controversial, and technical and procedural enhancements are required to reduce complications. Moreover, further studies are essential to evaluate second-generation devices in a broader patient population in order to understand whether the theoretical benefits of improved valve designs translate into fewer complications and a better long-term survival. Adjunctive devices, such as cerebrovascular protection devices, have to be further evaluated in clinical trials. This manuscript will focus on current procedural and post-procedural limitations of TAVI and future opportunities to overcome those challenges.