Search

Introduction: Patients with severe aortic stenosis referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) often present with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD). The management of CAD in these patients remains a topic of debate, encompassing the evaluation and timing of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Areas Covered: This review article aims to offer an overview of the role of coronary revascularization in TAVI patients, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of different strategies: PCI before, concomitant with, and after TAVI. Considering that TAVI indications are expanding and patients with low surgical risk are now being referred for TAVI, the rate of PCI among patients undergoing TAVI is expected to increase. Historically, PCI was performed before TAVI. However, there is now a growing trend to defer PCI until after TAVI., Expert Opinion: It is plausible that in the future, there will be an increase in PCI after TAVI due to several factors: first, multiple studies have shown the safety of TAVI even in patients with severe untreated CAD; second, improvements in TAVI device implantation techniques, such as commissural alignment and patient-specific device selection, have improved access to the coronary arteries post-TAVI.

Background: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients remains unknown., Aims: We sought to compare different PCI timing strategies in TAVI patients., Methods: The REVASC-TAVI registry is an international registry including patients undergoing TAVI with significant, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) at preprocedural workup. In this analysis, patients scheduled to undergo PCI before, after or concomitantly with TAVI were included. The main endpoints were all-cause death and a composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or rehospitalisation for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 2 years. Outcomes were adjusted using the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method., Results: A total of 1,603 patients were included. PCI was performed before, after or concomitantly with TAVI in 65.6% (n=1,052), 9.8% (n=157) or 24.6% (n=394), respectively. At 2 years, all-cause death was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (6.8% vs 20.1% vs 20.6%; p<0.001). Likewise, the composite endpoint was significantly lower in patients undergoing PCI after TAVI as compared with PCI before or concomitantly with TAVI (17.4% vs 30.4% vs 30.0%; p=0.003). Results were confirmed at landmark analyses considering events from 0 to 30 days and from 31 to 720 days., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and stable coronary artery disease scheduled for TAVI, performance of PCI after TAVI seems to be associated with improved 2-year clinical outcomes compared with other revascularisation timing strategies. These results need to be confirmed in randomised clinical trials.

Background: The safety of concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) setting is still highly debated. This study aimed to assess the safety and the effectiveness of TAVI and PCI performed in the same session compared with TAVI alone., Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) (N.=786) who underwent TAVI from June 2007 to April 2021 were divided into two groups: patients who underwent TAVI alone (N.=633) and patients treated with TAVI and concomitant PCI (N.=153). The propensity-score matching adjustment was used to account for baseline confounding variables., Results: A total of 302 TAVI with CAD patients (151 matched pairs), undergoing either isolated TAVI or TAVI+PCI were compared. In-hospital death (6% vs. 4%; P=0.427), stroke (2% vs. 0.7%; P=0.314), myocardial infarction (MI) (0% vs. 0.7%; P=0.317), major and life-threatening bleeding (14.6% vs. 15.9%; P=0.749), and acute kidney injury (9.3% vs. 10.6%; P=0.700) were similar for both groups. At 3 years, the rates of all-cause death (25.2% vs. 19.2%; P=0.615), the composite endpoints of all-cause death and MI (27.2% vs. 21.2%; P=0.699) and all-cause death, MI, and stroke (28.5% vs. 22.5%; P=0.739) were also comparable between the two groups. Achieving complete coronary revascularization in the TAVI setting did not impact on long-term mortality (P=0.257)., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and CAD, concomitant TAVI and PCI was as safe and effective as TAVI alone up to 3-year follow-up.

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Barbanti is consultant for Boston Scientifics, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Tamburino is consultant for Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Background: The best management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear due to the marked inconsistency of the available evidence., Methods: The REVASC-TAVI registry (Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Coronary Artery Disease) collected data from 30 centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVI who had significant, stable CAD at preprocedural work-up. For the purposes of this analysis, patients with either complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were compared in a propensity score matched analysis, to take into account of baseline confounders. The primary and co-primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure, respectively, at 2 years., Results: Among 2407 patients enrolled, 675 pairs of patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were matched. The primary (21.6% versus 18.2%, hazard ratio' 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66-1.18]; P =0.38) and co-primary composite (29.0% versus 27.1%, hazard ratio' 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76-1.24]; P =0.83) outcome did not differ between patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization, respectively. These results were consistent across different prespecified subgroups of patients (< or >75 years of age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score > or <4%, angina at baseline, diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction > or <40%, New York Heart Association class I/II or III/IV, renal failure, proximal CAD, multivessel CAD, and left main/proximal anterior descending artery CAD; all P values for interaction >0.10)., Conclusions: The present analysis of the REVASC-TAVI registry showed that, among TAVI patients with significant stable CAD found during the TAVI work-up, completeness of myocardial revascularization achieved either staged or concomitantly with TAVI was similar to a strategy of incomplete revascularization in reducing the risk of all cause death, as well as the risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure at 2 years, regardless of the clinical and anatomical situations.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of real-world patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the 34 mm Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota)., Background: Larger aortic annulus has been associated with increased incidence of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) after TAVR. However, little is known, so far, about the performance of the 34 mm Evolut R in this setting., Methods: From the multicenter, international, retrospective Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-expanding Valves (HORSE) registry, including patients who underwent TAVR for native severe AS, we selected patients treated with the 34 mm Evolut R evaluating procedural characteristics and VARC-2 defined device success. We also compared 34 mm Evolut R with other Evolut R sizes., Results: Among the 4434 patients included in the registry, 572 (13%) received the 34 mm Evolut R valve. Mean age was 80.8 ± 6.5 years and the median STS PROM score was 4 [interquartile range 2-6]. Device success was achieved in 87.4% with 7.7% of PVLs; moreover, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) was 22.4%. Patients who underwent 34 mm Evolut R implantation experienced more in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (22.4% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, 34 mm Evolut R did not affect device success (OR: 0.81 [0.60-1.09]; p = 0.151). Device success was consistent with other THVs sizes (87.4% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.157)., Conclusions: THV replacement in patients requiring 34 mm Evolut R has an acceptable performance. Compared to other Medtronic sizes it demonstrated to be comparable in terms of device success, despite an increased rate of pacemaker implantation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a streamlined and standardized procedure, different complications still remain and need the operators to be properly trained about their management., Areas Covered: This review article aims at offering a practical overview of the most impactful TAVI complications, analyzing, and discussing the potential risk factors, and focusing on the available strategies for their management., Expert Opinion: Complications following TAVI have been decreasing thanks to technical advancements and operators experience. The thorough knowledge of potential complications and their prevention played a key role in the decreasing of complications rates. Pre-procedural, computed tomography angiography assessment of patient's anatomical characteristics allows to properly choose and tailor the best strategy for managing complications in most cases. Nevertheless, further research is required to shed light on the optimal strategies to adopt for managing TAVI complications.

Background: To assess the longitudinal changes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) practice and patients' outcomes in a high-volume Italian center., Methods: We analyzed all patients undergoing TAVI at our Institution from June 2007 to August 2021. We stratified the overall population considering four time periods according to procedural advancements and changes in clinical practice: period 1 (2007-2009, n=107) vs period 2 (2010-2014, n=449) vs period 3 (2015-2019, n=864) vs period 4 (2019-2021, n=638). Baseline and procedural characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes among the four groups were compared., Results: A total of 2058 patients underwent TAVI receiving all the available devices. Patients had a median age of 82 years (78-85) with no differences among time periods. A stepwise reduction of median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score (3.7 [2.8-5.3] vs 3.6 [2.6-5.4] vs 3.6 [2.5-5.5] vs 3.3 [2.2-4.9]; p=0.01) was observed. In-hospital all-cause-death (7.5% vs 5.1% vs 2.9% vs 3.0%; p<0.05), major stroke (4.7% vs 0.7% vs 1.0% vs 0.8%; p<0.05), major vascular complications (17.8% vs 8.7% vs 10.5% vs 5.8%; p<0.05) and permanent pacemaker implantation (23.4% vs 12.0% vs 8.7% vs 8.8%; p<0.05) rates significantly lowered over time. Device success markedly improved (80.4% vs 87.1% vs 95.0% vs 96.3%; p<0.05) with significant improvement of paravalvular regurgitation after TAVI (moderate-to-severe 16.8% vs 8.1% vs 0.7% vs 0.2%; mild 61.4% vs 38.2% vs 38.5% vs 25.6%; p<0.05)., Conclusions: All-cause death and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI significantly improved accordingly to technical advancements and changes in clinical practice over 15-year experience.

Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic upset healthcare systems and their logistics worldwide. We sought to assess safety and effectiveness of an optimized logistics for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) pathway developed during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis. An optimized TAVI logistics based on performing TAVI work-up and procedure during the same hospitalization was used during the COVID-19 pandemic. In-hospital and 30-day outcomes of patients treated during the pandemic were compared with an historical cohort of patients undergoing TAVI with staged work-up before the pandemic within an homogeneous timeframe., Results: Of 536 patients, 227 (42.4%) underwent TAVI during the COVID-19 pandemic with a reduction of 26.5% compared to the pre-pandemic period (n = 309). The median age was 81 (77-85) years and STS score was 3.4 (2.2-5.6)%. Lower rates of in-hospital major vascular complications (2.2% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.01) and life-threatening bleeding (0.4% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.01) were reported in the COVID-19 period, whereas no difference in acute kidney injury (7.0% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.85) rate was reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods. No difference in 30-day rates of all-cause death (4.0 vs. 4.5, p = 0.75) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (4.0 vs. 6.1, p = 0.26) were reported between COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 periods., Conclusions: The use of optimized single-hospitalization logistics for TAVI workup and procedure developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, showed to be as safe and effective as the two-stage TAVI pathway previously adopted, allowing the minimization of potential exposure to COVID-19 infection and shortening times to treatment for severely symptomatic patients., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Vascular complications still represent an important issue after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of upfront use of an adjunctive Angio-Seal (AS) plug-based system on top of suture-based devices (SBDs) for endovascular haemostasis after transfemoral (TF) TAVI., Methods: From January 2019 to April 2020, 332 consecutive patients with preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) assessment underwent fully percutaneous TF-TAVI. The primary outcomes were 30-day major vascular complications and major or life-threatening (LT) bleeding due to endovascular closure system failure. A total of 246 TF-TAVI patients (123 pairs), undergoing either isolated SBD or SBD+AS, were matched using the propensity-score method., Results: At 30 days, patients receiving SBD+AS had lower rates of major/LT bleeding (1.6% vs 8.9%, odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01) and major vascular complications (1.6% vs 8.9%, OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.78; p<0.01). In addition, the use of SBD+AS was associated with a significant cost saving related to the vascular event (mean difference -315.3 € per patient, 95% CI: -566.4 € to -64.1 €; p=0.01), and a higher probability of next-day discharge (NDD) after TAVI (30.9% vs 16.3%, OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.25-4.25; p<0.01). No difference in all-cause 30-day mortality was observed (3.3% vs 1.6% for SBD and SBD+AS groups, respectively, OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.09-2.74; p=0.41)., Conclusions: An upfront combined strategy with an additional AS plug-based device on top of SBDs was shown to reduce major vascular complications and major/LT bleeding due to closure system failure after TF-TAVI. This approach was associated with a cost saving and with a higher probability of NDD compared to the use of isolated SBD. Visual summary. Effectiveness of the upfront combined strategy for endovascular haemostasis in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using Angio-Seal on top of a suture-based device (SBD) versus the isolated use of SBD. LT: life-threatening; TF-TAVI: transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Background: Horizontal aorta (HA) is an anatomical feature that can pose significant technical challenges for the successful positioning of the bioprosthetic valve during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Physiological range of aortic angle (AA) is unknown; hence there is no cutoff AA for classifying HA. Moreover, patient characteristics predicting HA are under-investigated., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospective collected data from 16 heart valve centers in Europe. The study utilized a common dataset with a priori agreed-upon definitions and variables. Eligible patients underwent TAVR between 2014 and 2020 and had multidetector computed tomographic imaging data available for determining the AA. The analysis described the distribution of AA and potential predictors of HA. Inter-center variability was also explored., Results: For 4022 patients analyzed, the mean AA ± standard deviation was 49.4° ± 9.4° (median 49°, inter-quartile range [IQR] 12°, range 18-90°). There was no significant difference in mean AA between men and women (49.4° ± 9.1° vs. 49.6° ± 9.3°, respectively; p = 0.53); therefore, 49.4° was accepted as the cutoff value for HA in subsequent analyses. Covariates significantly associated with HA included age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.04, p < 0.001), body mass index (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.08, p < 0.01), previous cardiac surgery (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.45-0.75, p < 0.001), and porcelain aorta (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). Some inter-center variability was observed., Conclusions: We defined 49.4° as the mean AA, and also associated predictors of HA in a large case series of patients with severe aortic stenosis candidates for TAVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].

Objectives: The aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility of coronary ostia cannulation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to assess potential predictors of coronary access impairment., Background: Certain data concerning the feasibility and reproducibility of coronary cannulation after TAVR are lacking., Methods: RE-ACCESS (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective, registry-based study that enrolled consecutive patients undergoing TAVR using all commercially available devices. All patients underwent coronary angiography before and after TAVR. The primary endpoint was the rate of unsuccessful coronary ostia cannulation after TAVR. Secondary endpoints were the identification of factors associated with the inability to selectively cannulate coronary ostia after TAVR., Results: Among 300 patients enrolled in the RE-ACCESS study from December 2018 to January 2020, a total of 23 cases (7.7%) of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR were documented. This issue occurred in 22 of 23 cases with the use of Evolut R/PRO transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) (17.9% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the use of Evolut R/PRO TAVs (odds ratio [OR]: 29.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6 to 335.0; p < 0.01), the TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation (OR: 1.1 per 1-mm increase; 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.2; p < 0.01), and the mean TAV implantation depth (OR: 1.7 per 1-mm decrease; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.3; p < 0.01) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. A model combining these factors was demonstrated to predict with very high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR (area under the curve: 0.94; p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation following TAVR was observed in 7.7% of patients and occurred almost exclusively in those receiving Evolut TAVs. The combination of Evolut TAV, a higher TAV-sinus of Valsalva relation, and implantation depth predicts with high accuracy the risk for unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent [RE-ACCESS]; NCT04026204)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and is an advisory board member for Biotronik. Dr. Tamburino has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Webb is a consultant to and has received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and ViVitro Labs. Dr. Leon has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; and is an unpaid member on the scientific advisory boards of Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Currently, several balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) are available in clinical practice. Each of them has potential advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account., Areas Covered: New-generation BE and SE TAVs showed similar mid-term outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and better results compared to early-generation devices.BE TAVs showed better results in terms of residual paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), whereas SE TAVs had better performance in terms of residual transvalvular gradients, larger effective orifice areas (EOAs) and therefore lower rates of prosthesis-patients mismatch (PPM). On one hand, supra-annular CoreValve/Evolut SE TAVs seems to have better results compared to SAPIEN XT/3 BE valves when used in the setting of valve-in-valve procedures in small bioprostheses. On the other hand, the need of ensuring an easy coronary re-access after TAVR especially in younger patients seems to favor the large cell design of SAPIEN 3/ULTRA BE valves. Finally, first long-term durability reports seem to suggest lower rates of structural valve dysfunction (SVD) with supra-annular SE TAVs., Expert Opinion: Although currently available TAVs showed similar mid-term outcomes, the expansion of TAVR indications toward lower risk, younger patients imposes attention to long-term durability, and to the need of obtaining optimized EOAs and an easy coronary re-access for future percutaneous interventions.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors and safety of next-day discharge (NDD) after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) in unselected patients receiving either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices., Methods and Results: From June 2007 to August 2018, 1,232 consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVI were discharged alive from our institution. They had a mean age of 80.9±5.4 years and an intermediate estimated surgical mortality risk; they received either balloon-expandable (26.1%) or self-expanding prostheses (73.9%). We compared patients discharged within 24 hours from the procedure (n=160, 13.0%) with those discharged later, and accounted for confounding variables through a propensity matching adjustment. After adjustment, no differences in all-cause mortality (1.2% vs 0.0%, for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.16) or permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after TAVI (0.6% vs 0.6%, respectively) were encountered at 30 days. At one year, no difference in the composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) rehospitalisation was encountered (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 91.9% vs 90.6% for NDD and no-NDD matched groups, respectively, p=0.69). After excluding patients with post-procedural major complications from the unmatched population, prior PPI (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21-3.51; p<0.01) and availability of preprocedural computed tomography angiography (CTA) (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.15-2.54; p<0.01) were found to be predictors of NDD after TAVI., Conclusions: NDD in unselected patients after TF-TAVI using either balloon-expandable or self-expanding devices was demonstrated to be a safe strategy up to one year in the absence of procedural complications. Patients with prior PPI and undergoing preprocedural CTA had a higher chance of NDD.

Introduction : Transcatheter aortic valve implantation therapy is spreading rapidly, representing the standard of care in inoperable and high-risk patients, and a valid alternative in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. In this subset, the development and validation of noninvasive, quantitative, in vivo imaging modality, to monitor possible valve dysfunction is mandatory, in order to plan timely therapeutic interventions before the onset of symptoms. Areas covered : The implantation of transcatheter heart valves (THV) is increasing rapidly. As a consequence, THV dysfunction will become a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity after TAVI. Emergency repeat aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with a high rate of mortality compared with elective repeat surgery. In this context, early detection of THV dysfunction is therefore highly desirable. The review aims to examine the different diagnostic method to early detect THV dysfunction. Expert opinion : Most promising innovations in the diagnosis of early detection of THV dysfunction are evaluated, and the future outlook is explored. Waiting for upcoming evidence about the utility of CT, CMR, and PET on early detection of THV dysfunction, tailoring echocardiogram follow-up based on patients' characteristics is the desirable approach.