Search

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.)

Purpose: There are concerns that transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) procedures are preferentially available to White patients. Our objective was to examine differences in utilization of aortic valve replacement and outcomes by race/ethnicity in the US for patients with aortic stenosis., Methods: We performed a serial cross-sectional cohort study of 299,976 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2019 stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and White). Outcomes included aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of index hospitalization and associated procedural outcomes, including 30-day readmission, 30-day and 1-year mortality., Results: Within 6 months of an index admission for aortic stenosis, 86.8% (122,457 SAVR; 138,026 TAVR) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Overall, compared with White people, Black (HR 0.87 [0.85-0.89]), Hispanic (0.92 [0.88-0.96]), and Asian (0.95 [0.91-0.99]) people were less likely to receive aortic valve replacement. Among patients who were admitted emergently/urgently, White patients (41.1%, 95% CI, 40.7-41.4) had a significantly higher aortic valve replacement rate compared with Black (29.6%, 95% CI, 28.3-30.9), Hispanic (36.6%, 95% CI, 34.0-39.3), and Asian patients (35.4%, 95% CI, 32.3-38.9). Aortic valve replacement rates increased annually for all race/ethnicities. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality by race/ethnicity., Conclusions: Aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of aortic stenosis admission are lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people compared to White people. These race-related differences in aortic stenosis treatment reflect complex issues in diagnosis and management, warranting a comprehensive reassessment of the entire care spectrum for disadvantaged populations., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), hospital variation and change in PPM implantation rates are ill defined., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine hospital-level variation and temporal trends in the rate of PPM implantation following TAVR., Methods: Using the American College of Cardiology/Society of Thoracic Surgeons TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry, temporal changes in variation of in-hospital and 30-day PPM implantation were determined among 184,452 TAVR procedures across 653 sites performed from 2016 to 2020. The variation in PPM implantation adjusted for valve type by annualized TAVR volume was determined, and characteristics of sites below, within, and above the 95% boundary were identified. A series of stepwise multivariable hierarchical models were then fit, and the median OR was used to measure variation in pacemaker rates among sites., Results: From 2016 to 2020, the overall rate of PPM implantation was 11.3%, with wide variation across sites (range: 0%-36.4%); rates trended lower over time. Adjusted for annualized volume, there were 34 sites with PPM implantation rates above the 95th percentile CI and 28 with rates below, with wide variation among the remaining sites. After adjusting for patient-level covariates, there was variation among sites in the probability of PPM implantation (median OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.35-1.43, P < 0.001); although some of the variation was explained by the addition of valve type, residual variation in PPM implantation rates persisted in additional models incorporating site-level covariates (annualized volume, region, teaching status, hospital beds, etc)., Conclusions: Although PPM implantation rates have decreased over time, substantial site-level variation remains even after accounting for observed patient characteristics and site-level factors. As there are numerous outlier sites both above and below the 95% confidence limit, dissemination of best practices from high-performing sites to low-performing sites and guideline-based education may be important quality improvement initiatives to reduce rates of this common complication., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by the ACC Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. The analytic work for this investigator-initiated study was performed by the Duke Clinical Research Institute, with financial support from the ACC. The STS/ACC TVT Registry is an initiative of the STS and the ACC. The views expressed in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry or its associated professional societies, identified at https://cvquality.acc.org/NCDR-Home. The manuscript was reviewed by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry for compliance with registry description and representation, but the sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Vora is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr Gada is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, PiCardia, GHX, and Boston Scientific; and has conducted research for Medtronic, Abbott, PiCardia, GHX, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Kirtane has received institutional funding to Columbia University and/or the Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Cardiovascular Systems, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, Shockwave Medical, and Merck (in addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or the Cardiovascular Research Foundation for consulting and/or speaking engagements for which Dr Kirtane controlled the content); is a consultant for IMDS; and has received reimbursement of travel expenses and meals from Amgen, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CathWorks, Edwards, Cardiovascular Systems, Novartis, Philips, Abiomed, Merck, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, Zoll, Shockwave Medical, and Regeneron. Dr Nazif is a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Reardon is a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical, and Gore Medical. Dr Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Thourani is a consultant for and has received research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, AtriCure, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Dasi simulations, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr Sherwood has received research support from Abbott; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Julien holds equity in Johnson & Johnson and Shockwave Medical. Dr Vemulapalli has grants or contracts with the STS, the ACC, the National Institutes of Health (R01 and UG3), Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, the American College of Physicians, Total CME, and Veralox Therapeutics. 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: 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: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain., Methods: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR., Conclusions: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Lu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, consulting fees from Atricure, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Artivion, Shockwave, and Edwards Lifesciences, and holds equity in Dasi Simulations. Dr Kodali reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Makkar reports grant support/research contract from Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude Medical, and consultant fee/honoraria/speaker’s bureau from Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, Medtronic. Dr Herrmann reports institutional research funding from Abbott Vascular, Ancora, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic; and equity in Microinterventional Devices. Dr Williams has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT]) for Abbott; served as study chair for the APOLLO trial (Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Medtronic Intrepid TMVR System in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation) for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee, Edwards Lifesciences (nonpaid), and reports institutional research grants and being a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Sinomed; and holds equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen reports research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

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.)

Background: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR., Results: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site., Conclusions: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The 3M-TAVR trial (3M-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of next-day hospital discharge after transfemoral TAVR with implementation of a minimalist pathway. However, the economic impact of this approach is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated costs for patients undergoing minimalist TAVR compared with conventional TAVR., Methods: We used propensity matching to compare resource utilization and costs (from a US health care system perspective) for patients in the 3M-TAVR trial with those for transfemoral TAVR patients enrolled in the contemporaneous S3i trial (PARTNER SAPIEN-3 Intermediate Risk). Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization for both groups. For the S3i group, all other costs through 30-day follow-up were assessed by linkage with Medicare claims; for 3M, these costs were assessed using regression models derived from S3i cost and resource utilization data., Results: After 1:1 propensity matching, 351 pairs were included in our study (mean age 82, mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score 5.3%). There were no differences in death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the 3M-TAVR and S3i groups through 30-day follow-up. Index hospitalization costs were $10 843/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort, driven by reductions in procedure duration, anesthesia costs, and length of stay. Between discharge and 30 days, costs were similar for the 2 groups such that cumulative 30-day costs were $11 305/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort compared with the S3i cohort ($49 425 versus $60 729, 95% CI for difference $9378 to $13 138; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Compared with conventional transfemoral TAVR, use of a minimalist pathway in intermediate-risk patients was associated with similar clinical outcomes and substantial in-hospital cost savings, which were sustained through 30 days., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02287662.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with a dismal prognosis. However, scarce data exist on IE perivalvular extension (PEE) in such patients., Methods: This multicenter study included 579 patients who had the diagnosis of definite IE at a median of 171 (53-421) days following TAVR. PEE was defined as the presence of an intracardiac abscess, pseudoaneurysm, or fistula., Results: A total of 105 patients (18.1%) were diagnosed with PEE (perivalvular abscess, pseudoaneurysm, fistula, or a combination in 87, 7, 7, and 4 patients, respectively). A history of chronic kidney disease (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-3.41; P = .003) and IE secondary to coagulase-negative staphylococci (ORadj, 2.71; 95% CI: 1.57-4.69; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk of PEE. Surgery was performed at index IE episode in 34 patients (32.4%) with PEE (vs 15.2% in patients without PEE, P < .001). In-hospital and 2-year mortality rates among PEE-IE patients were 36.5% and 69.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with an increased mortality were the occurrence of other complications (stroke post-TAVR, acute renal failure, septic shock) and the lack of surgery at index IE hospitalization (padj < 0.05 for all)., Conclusions: PEE occurred in about one-fifth of IE post-TAVR patients, with the presence of coagulase-negative staphylococci and chronic kidney disease determining an increased risk. Patients with PEE-IE exhibited high early and late mortality rates, and surgery during IE hospitalization seemed to be associated with better outcomes., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. J. R.-C. has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. V. P. has received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport. D. T. has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. H. C. H. has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. J. G. W. has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. R. M. has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. F. S. de B. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. S. L. has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. H. Le B. has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences outside the submitted work. J. M. S. has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic and research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic outside the submitted work. K. W.-K. has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Meril outside the submitted work. S. S. reports grants to their institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex outside the submitted work. O. H. has received personal fees from Boston Scientific and payments from Abbott. N. M. has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bayer outside the submitted work. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. 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) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 50%, early LVEF improvement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 1-year mortality; however, its association with long-term clinical outcomes is not known., Objective: To examine the association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and 5-year outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015. High- and intermediate-risk patients with baseline LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR were included in the current study. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to May 2021., Exposures: Early LVEF improvement, defined as increase of 10 percentage points or more at 30 days and also as a continuous variable (ΔLVEF between baseline and 30 days)., Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause death at 5 years., Results: Among 659 included patients with LVEF less than 50%, 468 (71.0%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 82.4 (7.7) years. LVEF improvement within 30 days following transfemoral TAVR occurred in 216 patients (32.8%) (mean [SD] ΔLVEF, 16.4 [5.7%]). Prior myocardial infarction, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area were independently associated with lower likelihood of LVEF improvement. Patients with vs without early LVEF improvement after TAVR had lower 5-year all-cause death (102 [50.0%; 95% CI, 43.3-57.1] vs 246 [58.4%; 95% CI, 53.6-63.2]; P = .04) and cardiac death (52 [29.5%; 95% CI, 23.2-37.1] vs 135 [38.1%; 95% CI, 33.1-43.6]; P = .05). In multivariable analyses, early improvement in LVEF (modeled as a continuous variable) was associated with lower 5-year all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio per 5% increase in LVEF, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88-1.00]; P = .04) and cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio per 5% increase in LVEF, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.82-0.98]; P = .02) after TAVR. Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated a visual inflection point at ΔLVEF of 10% beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 5 years in patients with vs without early LVEF improvement. In subgroup analysis, the association between early LVEF improvement and 5-year all-cause death was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of coronary artery disease or prior myocardial infarction., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, 1 in 3 experience LVEF improvement within 1 month after TAVR. Early LVEF improvement is associated with lower 5-year all-cause and cardiac death.

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.)

Background: The optimal treatment of patients developing infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain., Objectives: The goal of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with TAVI-IE treated with cardiac surgery and antibiotics (IE-CS) compared with patients treated with antibiotics alone (IE-AB)., Methods: Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were applied for the treatment effect of cardiac surgery vs medical therapy on 1-year all-cause mortality in patients with definite TAVI-IE. The study used data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVI International Registry., Results: Among 584 patients, 111 patients (19%) were treated with IE-CS and 473 patients (81%) with IE-AB. Compared with IE-AB, IE-CS was not associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (HR unadj : 0.85; 95% CI: 0.58-1.25) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR unadj : 0.88; 95% CI: 0.64-1.22) in the crude cohort. After adjusting for selection and immortal time bias, IE-CS compared with IE-AB was also not associated with lower mortality rates for in-hospital mortality (HR adj : 0.92; 95% CI: 0.80-1.05) and 1-year all-cause mortality (HR adj : 0.95; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07). Results remained similar when patients with and without TAVI prosthesis involvement were analyzed separately. Predictors for in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality included logistic EuroSCORE I, Staphylococcus aureus, acute renal failure, persistent bacteremia, and septic shock., Conclusions: In this registry, the majority of patients with TAVI-IE were treated with antibiotics alone. Cardiac surgery was not associated with an improved all-cause in-hospital or 1-year mortality. The high mortality of patients with TAVI-IE was strongly linked to patients' characteristics, pathogen, and IE-related complications., 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 del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr de Brito has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work. Dr Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Kim has received proctor/speaker fees/served on the advisory board for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Meril Life Sciences, and Shockwave Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside the submitted work. Dr Søndergaard has received consultant fees and/or institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and SMT. Dr Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and payments from Abbott. Dr Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer outside the submitted work. Dr Rodés-Cabau has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. 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: Moderate or worse paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) post transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased mortality. The mechanisms by which this occurs are not fully understood., Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the mechanism by which PVR leads to worse outcomes., Methods: A total of 1,974 intermediate-risk patients who received TAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial and registries were grouped by PVR severity. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were compared., Results: Overall 1,176 (60%) patients had none/trace, 680 (34%) had mild, and 118 (6%) had ≥moderate PVR. At two years, ≥moderate PVR patients had increased risks of all-cause (HR 2.33 [1.41-3.85], p-value=0.001) and cardiovascular death (HR 3.30 [1.74-6.28], p-value <0.001), rehospitalisation (HR 2.68 [1.57-4.58], p-value <0.001), and reintervention (HR 14.72 [3.13-69.32], p-value <0.001). Moderate or worse PVR was associated with larger increases in left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic and systolic dimensions and volumes, LV mass indices, and reductions in LV ejection fractions (LVEFs) from 30 days to two years. Mild PVR was not associated with worse outcomes. Adjusting for LV dimensions and LVEF from the one-year echocardiogram, patients with ≥moderate PVR still had an increased risk of all-cause death or rehospitalisation at two years (HR 2.84 [1.25-5.78], p-value=0.009)., Conclusions: Moderate or worse PVR, but not mild PVR, is associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, rehospitalisation, and reintervention at two years. Moderate or worse PVR is also associated with adverse LV remodelling, which partially mediates how ≥moderate PVR leads to worse outcomes. These results provide dual insights on the deleterious impact of ≥moderate PVR and the contributing mechanisms of poor clinical outcomes.

Background: Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR., Methods: Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014)., Results: Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE ( CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P < .05 for all)., Conclusions: Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Recent trends, including survival beyond 30 days, in aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the expansion of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well-understood., Objectives: The authors sought to characterize the trends in characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing AVR., Methods: The authors analyzed Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR and SAVR in 2012 to 2019. They evaluated case volume, demographics, comorbidities, 1-year mortality, and discharge disposition. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the annual change in outcomes., Results: Per 100,000 beneficiary-years, AVR increased from 107 to 156, TAVR increased from 19 to 101, whereas SAVR declined from 88 to 54. The median [interquartile range] age remained similar from 77 [71-83] years to 78 [72-84] years for overall AVR, decreased from 84 [79-88] years to 81 [75-86] years for TAVR, and decreased from 76 [71-81] years to 72 [68-77] years for SAVR. For all AVR patients, the prevalence of comorbidities remained relatively stable. The 1-year mortality for all AVR decreased from 11.9% to 9.4%. Annual change in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.94) for TAVR and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for SAVR, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95) for all AVR. Patients discharged to home after AVR increased from 24.2% to 54.7%, primarily driven by increasing home discharge after TAVR., Conclusions: The advent of TAVR has led to about a 60% increase in overall AVR in older adults. Improving outcomes in AVR as a whole following the advent of TAVR with increased access is a reassuring trend., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mori is a PhD student in the Investigative Medicine Program at Yale, which is supported by CTSA grant number UL1 TR001863 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr Gupta was supported by NIH training grant T32 HL007854. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NIH. Dr Gupta has received payment from the Arnold & Porter Law Firm for work related to the Sanofi clopidogrel litigation and from the Ben C. Martin Law Firm for work related to an IVC filter litigation; holds equity in Heartbeat Health, Inc; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Vahl has received institutional funding from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Siemens Healthineers; and has personally received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr Kirtane has received institutional funding from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, and ReCor Medical; has received fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for speaking engagements and/or consulting; has been a consultant for Neurotronic; and has received travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr Leon is an early physician founder and has an equity relationship (<1% of the company) with Mitralign. Dr Kodali has received consultant honoraria from Admedus, Dura Biotech, and TriCares; has equity in Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, Admedus, TriFlo, and Adona; and has received institutional research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve. Dr. Krumholz, in the past 3 years, has received expenses and/or personal fees from UnitedHealth, IBM Watson Health, Element Science, Aetna, Facebook, Massachusetts Medical Society, the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm, Arnold and Porter Law Firm, Martin/Baughman Law Firm, F-Prime, and the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; is a co-founder of Refactor Health and HugoHealth; and has received grants and/or contracts from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medtronic, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, State of Connecticut Department of Public Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and the Shenzhen Center for Health Information. 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 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.)

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with supra-annular transcatheter heart valves has been adopted in patients with degenerated surgical aortic valves. The next generation self-expanding Evolut PRO valve has not been evaluated in patients with surgical valve failure. Methods and Results Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve procedures using the Evolut R or Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry between April 2015 and June 2019 were evaluated. Transcatheter valve performance was evaluated by clinical site echocardiography. In-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year clinical outcomes were based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-American College of Cardiology-Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry definitions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve was performed in 5897 patients (5061 [85.8%] patients received the Evolut R valve and 836 [14.2%] received the Evolut PRO valve). Thirty-day transcatheter heart valves hemodynamic performance was excellent in both groups (mean gradient: Evolut PRO: 13.8±7.5 mm Hg; Evolut R: 14.5±8.1 mm Hg), while paravalvular regurgitation was significantly different between valve types ( P =0.02). Clinical events were low at 30 days (Evolut PRO: for the all-cause mortality, 2.8%, any stroke was 1.8%, new pacemaker implantation, 3.0%: Evolut R:all-cause mortality, 2.5%, any stroke was 2.2%, new pacemaker implantation, 5.3%) and 1 year (Evolut PRO: all-cause mortality, 9.2%; any stroke, 3.1%; Evolut R: all-cause mortality, 9.8%; any stroke, 2.9%). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in degenerated surgical aortic valve with self-expandable supra-annular transcatheter heart valves is associated with excellent clinical outcomes and valve hemodynamics. Additional reductions in residual paravalvular regurgitation were obtained with the next generation Evolut PRO.

Importance: There are limited data on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk., Objective: To compare the outcomes of TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis in patients who are at low surgical risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: Registry-based cohort study of patients undergoing TAVR at 684 US centers. Participants were enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry from June 2015 to October 2020. Among 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid, 152 603 tricuspid), 37 660 patients (3243 bicuspid and 34 417 tricuspid) who were at low surgical risk (defined as STS risk score <3%) were included in the analysis., Exposures: TAVR for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included procedural complications and valve hemodynamics., Results: Among 159 661 patients (7058 bicuspid; 152 603 tricuspid), 3168 propensity-matched pairs of patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk were analyzed (mean age, 69 years; 69.8% men; mean [SD] STS-predicted risk of mortality, 1.7% [0.6%] for bicuspid and 1.7% [0.7%] for tricuspid). There was no significant difference between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups' rates of death at 30 days (0.9% vs 0.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.68-2.03]; P = .55) and at 1 year (4.6% vs 6.6%; HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55-1.02]; P = .06) or stroke at 30 days (1.4% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.73-1.78]; P = .55) and at 1 year (2.0% vs 2.1%; HR 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.53]; P = .89).There were no significant differences between the bicuspid and tricuspid groups in procedural complications, valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradient: 13.2 mm Hg vs 13.5 mm Hg; absolute risk difference [RD], 0.3 mm Hg [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.3 mm Hg]), and moderate or severe paravalvular leak (3.4% vs 2.1%; absolute RD, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.6% to 3.2%])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary, registry-based study of propensity-matched patients at low surgical risk who had undergone TAVR for aortic stenosis, patients treated for bicuspid vs tricuspid aortic stenosis had no significant difference in mortality or stroke at 30 days or 1 year. Because of the potential for selection bias and absence of a control group treated surgically for bicuspid aortic stenosis, randomized trials are needed to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk.

Background Suprasternal access is an alternative access strategy for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) where the innominate artery is cannulated from an incision above the sternal notch. To date, suprasternal access has never been compared with transfemoral TAVR. Thus, we sought to assess safety, feasibility, and early clinical outcomes between suprasternal and transfemoral access for patients undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We evaluated patients from 2 institutional prospective, observational registries containing 1348 patients. Patients were selected in a 2:1 ratio (transfemoral:suprasternal) on the basis of propensity score matching. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included the incidence of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, vascular injury, left bundle-branch block, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30-day follow-up. Propensity score matching identified 89 patients undergoing suprasternal TAVR and 159 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR suitable for analysis. There was no significant difference between suprasternal TAVR and transfemoral TAVR with respect to in-hospital mortality (1.1% versus 0.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.80; 95% CI, 0.11-29.06; P =0.680). No patients in either cohort suffered an ischemic stroke. The incidence of major bleeding (2.2% versus 2.5%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.16-4.96; P =0.895) and vascular injury (1.1% versus 1.9%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.06-5.77; P =0.651) did not differ significantly. The frequency of left bundle-branch block (9.4% versus 15.8%; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.30; P =0.177) and permanent pacemaker implantation (11.2% versus 5.9%; OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.75-5.45; P =0.169) were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions Suprasternal TAVR was safe and achieved promising short-term clinical outcomes when compared with transfemoral TAVR. Future studies seeking to identify the optimal alternative access site should evaluate suprasternal TAVR access alongside other substitutes for transfemoral TAVR.

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.)

Aims: The REFLECT I trial investigated the safety and effectiveness of the TriGuard™ HDH (TG) cerebral embolic deflection device in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods and Results: This prospective, multicentre, single-blind, 2:1 randomized (TG vs. no TG) study aimed to enrol up to 375 patients, including up to 90 roll-in patients. The primary combined safety endpoint (VARC-2 defined early safety) at 30 days was compared with a performance goal. The primary efficacy endpoint was a hierarchical composite of (i) all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days, (ii) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) worsening at 2-5 days or Montreal Cognitive Assessment worsening at 30 days, and (iii) total volume of cerebral ischaemic lesions detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 2-5 days. Cumulative scores were compared between treatment groups using the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld method. A total of 258 of the planned, 375 patients (68.8%) were enrolled (54 roll-in and 204 randomized). The primary safety outcome was met compared with the performance goal (21.8% vs. 35%, P < 0.0001). The primary hierarchical efficacy endpoint was not met (mean efficacy score, higher is better: -5.3 ± 99.8 TG vs. 11.8 ± 96.4 control, P = 0.31). Covert central nervous system injury was numerically lower with TG both in-hospital (46.1% vs. 60.3%, P = 0.0698) and at 5 days (61.7 vs. 76.2%, P = 0.054) compared with controls., Conclusion: REFLECT I demonstrated that TG cerebral protection during TAVR was safe in comparison with historical TAVR data but did not meet the predefined effectiveness endpoint compared with unprotected TAVR controls., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.)

[Figure: see text].

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: Stroke is one of the most common and potentially disabling complications of infective endocarditis (IE). However, scarce data exist about stroke complicating IE after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with definite IE after TAVR complicated by stroke during index IE hospitalization., Methods: Data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry (including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries) was analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups according to stroke occurrence during IE admission (stroke [S-IE] vs. no stroke [NS-IE])., Results: A total of 57 (10%) patients had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in causative microorganism between groups. S-IE patients exhibited higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia (p < 0.05 for all). Previous stroke before IE, residual aortic regurgitation ≥moderate after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size >8 mm were associated with a higher risk of stroke during the index IE hospitalization (p < 0.05 for all). Stroke rate in patients with no risk factors was 3.1% and increased up to 60% in the presence of >3 risk factors. S-IE patients had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%; p < 0.001) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%; p < 0.001). Surgical treatment was not associated with improved outcomes in S-IE patients (in-hospital mortality: 46.2% in surgical vs. 58.1% in no surgical treatment; p = 0.47)., Conclusions: Stroke occurred in 1 of 10 patients with IE post-TAVR. A history of stroke, short time between TAVR and IE, vegetation size, valve prosthesis type, and residual aortic regurgitation determined an increased risk. The occurrence of stroke was associated with increased in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates, and surgical treatment failed to improve clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain). Dr. Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Husser has received personal fees from Boston Scientific; and has received payments from Abbott. Dr. Sinning has received speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Won-Keun has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, and Meril, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Herrmann has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Stortecky has received grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, BTG, and Teleflex, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Tchetche has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr. Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Makkar has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Capricor, and St. Jude Medical; has served as a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic. Dr. Lerakis has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. de Brito Jr. has received honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences for symposium speeches and proctoring cases. Dr. Le Breton has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Linke has received personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Abiomed, Bayer, and Boehringer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Rodés-Cabau holds the Research Chair “Fondation Famille Jacques Larivière” for the Development of Structural Heart Disease Interventions; and has received institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. 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.)

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.)

Background The impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in intermediate surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who undergo either transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not well established. Methods and Results Data were assessed in 2663 patients from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) 2A or S3i trials. Analyses grouped patients into 3 categories according to their baseline and discharge rhythms (ie, sinus rhythm [SR]/SR, SR/AF, or AF/AF). Among patients with transcatheter AVR (n=1867), 79.2% had SR/SR, 17.6% had AF/AF, and 3.2% had SR/AF. Among patients with surgical AVR (n=796), 71.7% had SR/SR, 14.1% had AF/AF, and 14.2% had SR/AF. Patients with transcatheter AVR in AF at discharge had increased 2-year mortality (SR/AF versus SR/SR; hazard ratio [HR], 2.73; 95% CI, 1.68-4.44; P <0.0001; AF/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.16-2.09; P =0.003); patients with SR/AF also experienced increased 2-year mortality relative to patients with AF/AF (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.04-3.00; P =0.03). For patients with surgicalAVR, the presence of AF at discharge was also associated with increased 2-year mortality (SR/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.25-2.96; P =0.002; and AF/AF versus SR/SR; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.06-2.63; P =0.027). Rehospitalization and persistent advanced heart failure symptoms were also more common among patients with transcatheter AVR and surgical AVR discharged in AF, and major bleeding was more common in the transcatheter AVR cohort. Conclusions The presence of AF at discharge in patients with intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis was associated with worse outcomes-especially in patients with baseline SR-including increased all-cause mortality at 2-year follow-up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01314313 and NCT03222128.

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.)

Aims: Advances in diagnostic imaging have increased the recognition of coexisting transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTR-CA) and severe aortic stenosis (AS), with a reported prevalence between 8-16%. In this prospective study, we aimed to evaluate the implications of ATTR-CA on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Methods and Results: At two academic centres, we screened patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR for ATTR-CA. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, we compared survival free from death and a combined endpoint of death and first heart failure hospitalization between patients with and without ATTR-CA. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the association of ATTR-CA with these endpoints. The rate of heart failure hospitalization was compared amongst those with and without ATTR-CA. Overall, 204 patients (83 years, 65% male, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 6.6%, 72% New York Heart Association class III/IV) were included, 27 (13%) with ATTR-CA. Over a median follow-up of 2.04 years, there was no difference in mortality (log rank, P = 0.99) or the combined endpoint (log rank, P = 0.79) between patients with and without ATTR-CA. In Cox proportional-hazards models, the presence of ATTR-CA was not associated with death. However, patients with ATTR-CA had increased rates of heart failure hospitalization at 1 year (0.372 vs. 0.114 events/person-year, P < 0.004) and 3 years (0.199 vs. 0.111 events/person-year, P = 0.087) following TAVR., Conclusion: In moderate-risk patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR, there was a 13% prevalence of ATTR-CA, which did not affect mortality. The observed increase in heart failure hospitalization following TAVR in those with ATTR-CA suggests the consequences of the underlying infiltrative myopathy., (© 2020 European Society of Cardiology.)

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.)

Background: While slow gait speed is known to be associated with poor outcomes in patients at high surgical risk who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the prognostic significance of slow gait speed in intermediate risk TAVR patients is poorly understood., Objectives: We assessed the association between baseline 6-min walk test (6MWT) performance and both 2-year mortality and health status in intermediate risk patients undergoing TAVR as a part of the PARTNER II/S3i studies., Methods: The association of baseline 6MWT with mortality over 2-years after TAVR was examined using Cox regression; both unadjusted and adjusted for age, left ventricular ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, and STS score. Patients were divided into four groups according to baseline 6MWT: unable to walk and in three equal tertiles of slow, medium, and fast walkers. Among surviving patients, improvement in 6MWT and quality of life were compared., Results: Among 2,037 intermediate risk TAVR patients (mean age 81.7 years, STS score 5.6%), 8.2% were unable to walk. Baseline 6MWT was associated with all-cause mortality over 2 years (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 per 50 m, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 to 0.92, p < .0001). Among surviving patients, the adjusted absolute change in 6MWT at 2 years improved for patients unable to walk (+134.1 m, 95% CI 102.1 to 166 m, p < .0001) and slow walkers (+60.5 m, 95% CI 42.8 to 78.2 m, p < .0001), but was unchanged for medium walkers (-7.3 m, 95% CI -24.3 to 9.6 m, p = .4), and declined for fast walkers (-41.3 m, 95% CI -58.7 to -23.9 m, p < .0001)., Conclusion: Poor functional capacity is predictive of 2-year mortality in elderly intermediate risk patients undergoing TAVR. However, surviving patients with poor baseline functional capacity had significant improvement in 6MWT performance and quality of life at 2-years following TAVR., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons., Methods: Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year., Results: Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I 2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I 2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios., Conclusions: In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.

Aims: Heart failure (HF) hospitalization prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with increased post-procedural mortality. We sought to assess the association between recent (≤6 months) HF hospitalization and long-term adverse outcomes in patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis, undergoing TAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial and registries., Methods and Results: Intermediate to high or even prohibitive risk patients who underwent TAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial and registries were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes at 30 days and 2 years were compared between patients according to whether they were recently hospitalized for HF, using Kaplan-Meier event rates and study-stratified multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using propensity score matching. Of 3988 patients (99.8%) with available information on recent HF hospitalization, 1622 patients (40.7%) were hospitalized for HF symptoms during the 6 months prior to TAVR. After multivariable adjustments, recent HF hospitalization was associated with increased all-cause mortality at 30 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.48, P = 0.02] and 2 years (adjusted HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.49, P = 0.0003), which was driven by increased cardiovascular mortality. Infective endocarditis rate at 2 years was also higher in patients with recent HF hospitalization (adjusted HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.38-4.01, P = 0.002). These results remained consistent when propensity score matching was used., Conclusion: In a large cohort of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis from the PARTNER 2 trial and registries, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as infective endocarditis rates at 2 years were higher in patients with recent HF hospitalization., (© 2020 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The clinical impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) recipients remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the impact of (i) periprocedural NOP-LBBB and PPI post-TAVR on 1-year all-cause death, cardiac death, and heart failure hospitalization and (ii) NOP-LBBB on the need for PPI at 1-year follow-up., Methods and Results: We performed a systematic search from PubMed and EMBASE databases for studies reporting raw data on 1-year clinical impact of NOP-LBBB or periprocedural PPI post-TAVR. Data from 30 studies, including 7792 patients (12 studies) and 42 927 patients (21 studies) for the evaluation of the impact of NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR were sourced, respectively. NOP-LBBB was associated with an increased risk of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-1.49; P < 0.001], cardiac death (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.20-1.78; P < 0.001), heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05-1.72; P = 0.02), and PPI (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.58-2.27; P < 0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural PPI after TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.25; P < 0.001) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.36; P = 0.02). Permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac death (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.05; P = 0.13)., Conclusion: NOP-LBBB and PPI after TAVR are associated with an increased risk of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. Periprocedural NOP-LBBB also increased the risk of cardiac death and PPI within the year following the procedure. Further studies are urgently warranted to enhance preventive measures and optimize the management of conduction disturbances post-TAVR., (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: 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.)

Objectives: To describe outcomes after suprasternal (SS) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a new alternative access approach., Background: There still remains a cohort of the TAVR population who are not suitable for a transfemoral (TF) approach. SS-TAVR is a safe and effective alternative to TF-TAVR and has now become our preferred alternative access route., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients from New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center and Princeton Baptist Medical Center who underwent SS-TAVR from 2015 to July 2018. A total of 84 patients were included in the study., Results: Technical success was achieved in all cases. Thirty-day survival was 98.8% (n = 83). There were minimal complications. Most notably, there were no transient ischemic attacks or strokes (0%, n = 0). Reexploration for bleeding was 3.6% (n = 3), and major bleeding was 1.7% (n = 1). We also achieved satisfactory results with a mean aortic valve gradient of 6.07 ± 3.79 mmHg and an aortic valve area of 2.21 ± 0.51 cm 2 . No patients had anything more than mild paravalvular leak. The mean length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit was 1.42 ± 1.23 days, and hospital LOS was 4.20 ± 3.29 days., Conclusions: SS access for TAVR is an extremely important technique to have in any valve team's alternative access armamentarium. This technique can be safely and reliably reproduced with any standard hybrid operating room setup and no additional equipment, and it can be used with any commercially available valve system. In the current experience, minimal complications and excellent early term results were obtained., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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

Aims: B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a cardiac neurohormone that is secreted in response to ventricular volume expansion and pressure overload. There are conflicting data regarding the association between BNP levels and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We therefore sought to assess the association between baseline BNP and adverse outcomes in patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis (AS), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%, undergoing TAVR in the PARTNER 2 Trial and Registry., Methods and Results: A total of 1782 patients were included in the analysis, and BNP was evaluated both as a continuous log-transformed value and by a priori categories: low (<50 pg/mL), normal (≥50 and <100 pg/mL), moderately elevated (≥100 and <400 pg/mL), or markedly elevated (≥400 pg/mL). Clinical outcomes from discharge to 2 years were compared between patients according to their baseline BNP level, using Kaplan-Meier event rates and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. After adjustment, spline curves revealed a non-linear association between log-transformed BNP and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in which both the lowest and highest values were associated with increased mortality. Two-year all-cause mortality rates for those with low (n = 86), normal (n = 202), moderately elevated (n = 885), and markedly elevated (n = 609) baseline BNP were 20.0%, 9.8%, 17.7%, and 26.1%, respectively. In adjusted models, compared to a normal baseline BNP, low [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-5.0, P-value 0.005], moderately elevated (adjusted HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6, P-value 0.06), and markedly elevated (adjusted HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3-3.5, P-value 0.003) BNP were associated with increased all-cause mortality, driven by cardiovascular mortality., Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with severe symptomatic AS and preserved LVEF undergoing TAVR, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates at 2 years were higher in patients with low and markedly elevated BNP levels., Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ unique identifier #NCT01314313, #NCT02184442, #NCT03222128, and #NCT03222141., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to report the 2-year results of the SURTAVI (Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial and confirm the interim Bayesian analysis., Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding valve was noninferior to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis and intermediate operative risk using Bayesian statistical methods. Novel Bayesian designs have been used to shorten the time to primary endpoint analysis in randomized clinical trials, although the predictive value of Bayesian analysis compared with frequentist approaches remains debated., Methods: The SURTAVI trial randomized 1,660 patients. An interim analysis was performed 1 year after the 1,400th patient was treated to estimate the primary 2-year endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling strokes for all patients., Results: The Kaplan-Meier rate for the complete 2-year primary endpoint was 12.7% in the TAVR group and 12.6% in the surgery group (0.0% difference; 95% confidence interval: -3.4% to 3.5%), compared with 12.6% with TAVR and 14.0% with surgery (-1.4% difference; Bayesian credible interval: -5.2% to 2.3%) in the interim Bayesian analysis. A comparison of individual clinical, hemodynamic, and quality-of-life endpoints using Bayesian and frequentist methods found no significant differences., Conclusions: The complete analysis of all patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk for surgery in the SURTAVI trial confirmed the noninferiority, with respect to the frequency of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, of TAVR to surgery, as determined in the interim Bayesian analysis. Follow-up will extend out to 10 years., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Current guidelines recommend TAVI in patients at increased operative risk of death. Advanced imaging planning, new transcatheter valve platforms, procedure streamlining and growing operator experience have improved procedural safety and bioprosthetic valve performance. As a result, TAVI has been explored for other indications. Two randomized trials published in 2019 to assess TAVI in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low operative risk have set the stage for a new wave of indications. In younger and low-risk patients, TAVI had an early safety benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with faster discharge from hospital and recovery and fewer rehospitalizations. In patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, TAVI has now been explored across the entire spectrum of operative risk, from inoperable to low-risk populations, in properly designed, randomized clinical trials, although data on the long-term durability of these valves are lacking. The use of TAVI in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, moderate aortic stenosis in combination with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and isolated pure aortic regurgitation is now under investigation in clinical trials. In this Review, we provide our perspective on these evolving indications for TAVI, discuss relevant available data from clinical trials, and highlight procedural implications and caveats of new and future indications.

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.)

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.)