Search

Patients with persistent severe mitral regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may benefit from mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER). Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we identified patients who had M-TEER within 6 months after TAVR and compared their outcomes with patients who had M-TEER without previous recent TAVR during the same calendar year between 2014 and 2020. Because Nationwide Readmission Database data do not cross years, analysis was restricted to the last half of each calendar year. End points included in-hospital mortality and 30-day and 90-day postdischarge rehospitalization rates. In 23,885 M-TEER patients, 396 (1.7%) had a previous recent TAVR. The number of post-TAVR M-TEER procedures increased progressively over time from 16 in 2014 to 92 in 2020. Patients who had M-TEER after a recent TAVR versus those without previous TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.23, p = 0.11), but higher rates of 30-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization (adjusted odds ratios 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.79, p = 0.04 and 1.63, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.36, p = 0.009, respectively). Nonetheless, in patients who underwent M-TEER post-TAVR, the cumulative 90-day all-cause hospitalization and heart failure hospitalization rates were less after M-TEER compared with before M-TEER (from 45.7% to 31.5%, p = 0.007, and from 29.0% to 16.6%, respectively, both p = 0.005). In conclusion, M-TEER procedures after TAVR in the United States are increasing. Patients with M-TEER after TAVR had similar in-hospital mortality as those who underwent M-TEER without recent TAVR, but higher 30-day hospitalization rates. Nonetheless, 90-day hospitalization rates were decreased after M-TEER in patients with previous TAVR., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Cardiomech, Gore, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Abiomed, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, HighLife; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, Xenter. Dr. Stone's employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Family disclosure: Dr. Stone's daughter is an employee at IQVIA. Dr. Abbott is Consulting – Abbott, Medtronic, Penumbra, Rapid AI, and Research – Boston Scientific, Microport, Med Alliance, Shockwave. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a higher risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF after TAVI remains unclear. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in these patients. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched till January 31, 2023, for relevant studies evaluating clinical outcomes of VKA versus DOAC in patients with AF after TAVI. Outcomes assessed were (1) all-cause mortality, (2) stroke, (3) major/life-threatening bleeding, and (4) any bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled in meta-analysis using random effect model. Nine studies (2 randomized and 7 observational) were included in systematic review, and 8 studies with 25,769 patients were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 48.3% were male. Pooled analysis using random-effects model showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.10, p = 0.33), stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.70), and major/life-threatening bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35, p = 0.70) in patients that received DOAC compared with oral VKA. Risk of any bleeding was lower in the DOAC group compared with oral VKA (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91, p = 0.0001). In patients with AF, DOACs appear to be a safe alternative oral anticoagulation strategy to oral VKA after TAVI. Further randomized studies are required to confirm the role of DOACs in those patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with pure native aortic regurgitation (AR) have been excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials. We sought to examine midterm outcomes with TAVR in AR compared with surgical AVR (SAVR) in a contemporary cohort., Methods: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent elective TAVR or SAVR for pure AR from 2016 to 2019 were identified. Patients with concomitant aortic stenosis and who underwent a valve-in-valve intervention or concomitant mitral valve or ascending aorta operation were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in the longest follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stroke, endocarditis, and redo AVR. Overlap propensity score weighting was used to adjust for confounders., Results: During the study period, 11,027 patients with pure AR underwent elective AVR (TAVR, n = 1147; SAVR, n = 9880). SAVR patients were younger, with fewer comorbidities and less frailty compared with TAVR patients. TAVR was associated with adjusted 30-day mortality comparable to SAVR. After a median follow-up of 31 months (interquartile range, 18-44 months), TAVR was associated with higher adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93; P = .02) and need for redo-AVR (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.05-4.34; P = .03) compared with SAVR. The risk of stroke (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.95-2.87; P = .07) and endocarditis (HR, 2.60; 95% CI, 0.92-7.36; P = .07) was numerically higher with TAVR., Conclusions: In Medicare patients with pure native AR, TAVR with the current commercially available transcatheter valves has comparable short-term outcomes. Although long-term outcomes were inferior to SAVR, the possibility of residual confounding, biasing long-term outcomes, given older and frailer TAVR patients, cannot be excluded., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transcarotid access has emerged as the preferred access site for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses in patients who underwent TAVI. Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched for all published studies that compared outcomes with transcarotid with those of other accesses (transfemoral, transaxillary/subclavian, transaortic, and transapical) in patients who underwent TAVI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding, major vascular complications, stroke, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and peri-aortic valve insufficiency. We included 22 observational studies with a total of 11,896 patients. Outcomes were reported during hospitalization and at 1-month follow-up. The transcarotid approach had higher mortality at 1 month (3.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.02) but lower major vascular complications during hospitalization (1.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.04) than did transfemoral access. The transcarotid approach had lower major vascular complications (2% vs 2.3%, p = 0.04) than did the transaxillary/subclavian but higher major bleeding (5.3% vs 2.6%, p = 0.03). The transaortic approach was associated with higher in-hospital (11.7% vs 1.9%, p = 0.02) and 1-month mortality (14.4% vs 3.9%, p = 0.007) rates than was transcarotid access. The transcarotid approach numerically reduced mortality and the risk of major vascular complications and major bleeding compared with the transapical approach; however, this did not reach statistical significance. The transcarotid approach did not increase the risk of stroke compared with transfemoral or the other alternative accesses. In conclusion, the transcarotid or transaxillary/subclavian approach had associated comparable outcomes that were better than those of the transapical and transaortic approaches. There was no difference in stroke risk between transcarotid access and other accesses., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients who underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for mitral regurgitation with atrial fibrillation (AF) at baseline have higher mortality than those without AF. Data on new-onset AF (NOAF) after TEER are limited. Using the 2016 to 2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent TEER and classified them into 3 groups based on AF presence during the study period. The primary end point was the incidence and timing of NOAF up to 6 months after TEER. Logistic regression modeling identified independent predictors of NOAF at readmission. Of the 6,861patients that underwent TEER, 4,134 (59.9%) had AF at baseline, and 239 (3.5%) developed NOAF. Median time-to-NOAF admission was 47 days (interquartile range 16 to 113), and 37% of patients with NOAF presented within 30 days after TEER. Patients with NOAF experienced costlier and longer index-TEER hospitalization and had more co-morbidities. Chronic kidney disease (odds ratio [OR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 2.20), fluid and electrolyte disorders (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.52), and heart failure (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.44) were identified as independent predictors of NOAF. Hypertensive complications and heart failure were the leading causes of readmission. In conclusion, those patients that developed NOAF after TEER tended to be an overall sicker group at baseline compared with the remainder of the study cohort. These data, obtained from a nationally representative cohort, highlight a particular group of patients subject to developing NOAF and their association with increased rehospitalization in the post-TEER setting. Predictors of NOAF can be screened for during TEER workup to identify patients at increased risk., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr. Khera is a consultant, speaker, and proctor for Medtronic; a consultant for Terumo, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; and a speaker for Zoll Medical. Dr. Elmariah received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular and is also a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the rate of readmission for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation with early versus late discharge after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: There is a current trend toward early discharge after TAVR. However, paucity of data exists on the impact of such practice on readmissions for PPM implantation., Methods: The Nationwide Readmission Database 2016-2018 was queried for all hospitalizations where patients underwent TAVR. Hospitalizations were stratified into early (Days 0 and 1) versus late (≥Day 2) discharge groups. Observations in which PPM was required in the index admission were excluded. Multivariable regression analyses involving patient- and hospital-related variables were utilized. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission for PPM implantation., Results: The final analysis included 68,482 TAVR hospitalizations, 20,261 (29.6%) with early versus 48,221 (70.4%) with late discharge. Early discharge after TAVR increased over the study period (16.2% in 2016 vs. 37.9% in 2018, P trend  < 0.01). Nevertheless, 90-day readmission for PPM implantation remained stable (1.8% in 2016 vs. 2.0% in 2018, P trend  = 0.32). The 90-day readmission rate for PPM implantation (2.0% vs. 1.8%; adjusted odds ratio: 1.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.95-1.39; p = 0.15) and median time-to-readmission (5 days [interquartile range, IQR 3-9] vs. 5 days [IQR 3-14], p = 0.92) were similar with early versus late discharge. Similar rates were observed regardless of whether readmission was elective versus not. Early discharge was associated with lower hospitalization cost ($39,990 ± $13,681 vs. $46,750 ± $18,218, p < 0.01) compared with late discharge., Conclusion: In patients who did not require PPM during the index TAVR hospitalization, the rate of readmission for PPM implantation was similar with early versus late discharge., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Patients with rheumatic aortic stenosis (AS) were excluded from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials., Objectives: The authors sought to examine outcomes with TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with rheumatic AS, and versus TAVR in nonrheumatic AS., Methods: The authors identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR from October 2015 to December 2017, and then identified patients with rheumatic AS using prior validated International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 codes. Overlap propensity score weighting analysis was used to adjust for measured confounders. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Multiple secondary outcomes were also examined., Results: The final study cohort included 1,159 patients with rheumatic AS who underwent aortic valve replacement (SAVR, n = 554; TAVR, n = 605), and 88,554 patients with nonrheumatic AS who underwent TAVR. Patients in the SAVR group were younger and with lower prevalence of most comorbidities and frailty scores. After median follow-up of 19 months (interquartile range: 13 to 26 months), there was no difference in all-cause mortality with TAVR versus SAVR (11.2 vs. 7.0 per 100 person-year; adjusted hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 2.79; p = 0.2). Compared with TAVR in nonrheumatic AS, TAVR for rheumatic AS was associated with similar mortality (15.2 vs. 17.7 deaths per 100 person-years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.2) after median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range: 11 to 24 months). None of the rheumatic TAVR patients, <11 SAVR patients, and 242 nonrheumatic TAVR patients underwent repeat aortic valve replacement (124 redo-TAVR and 118 SAVR) at follow-up., Conclusions: Compared with SAVR, TAVR could represent a viable and possibly durable option for patients with rheumatic AS., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr. Mentias received support from National Institute of Health NRSA institutional grant (T32 HL007121) to the Abboud Cardiovascular Research Center. Dr. Sarrazin is supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging (NIA R01AG055663-01), and by the Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Horwitz has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences 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: The impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on all-cause mortality has been controversial., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of eleven studies (7398 patients) comparing the short- and long- outcomes in patients who had new-onset LBBB after TAVR vs. those who did not., Results: During a mean follow-up of 20.5±14months, patients who had new-onset persistent LBBB after TAVR had a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (29.7% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.28 (1.04-1.58), p=0.02), rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (19.5% vs. 17.3%; OR 1.4 (1.13-1.73), p=0.002), and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMi) (19.7% vs. 7.1%; OR 2.4 (1.64-3.52), p<0.001) compared with those who did not. Five studies (4180 patients) reported adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality; new LBBB remained associated with a higher risk of mortality (adjusted HR 1.43 (1.08-1.9), p<0.01, I 2 =81%)., Conclusion: Post-TAVR persistent LBBB is associated with higher PPMi, HF hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. While efforts to identify patients who need post-procedural PPMi are warranted, more studies are required to evaluate the best follow-up and treatment strategies, including the type of pacing device if required, to improve long-term outcomes in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Sameer Gafoor: consultant to Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic. Emmanouil Brilakis: consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, and Teleflex; research support from Regeneron and Siemens. Shareholder: MHI Ventures. João L. Cavalcante: Consulting: Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, 4Tech, Edwards Lifesciences. Grant support: Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Circle Cardiovascular Imaging. Speaker's honoraria: Siemens Healthineers, Medtronic. Santiago Garcia: Consultant for Surmodics, Osprey Medical, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott. Dr. Garcia has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and the VA Office of Research and Development. Paul Sorajja: consulting, speaking for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; equity and consulting for Pipeline Technologies and Admedus. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Data about endocarditis after TAVR are limited., Methods: The study investigated Medicare patients who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 and identified patients admitted with endocarditis during follow-up using a validated algorithm. The main study outcome was all-cause mortality., Results: Of 134,717 patients who underwent TAVR, 1868 patients developed endocarditis during follow-up (incidence 0.87%/year), with majority of infections (65.0%) occurring within 1 year. Incidence of endocarditis declined in recent years. The most common organisms were Staphylococcus (22.0%), Streptococcus (20.0%), and Enterococcus (15.5%). Important predictors for endocarditis were younger age at TAVR, male sex, prior endocarditis, end-stage renal disease, repeat TAVR procedures, liver and lung disease, and post-TAVR acute kidney injury. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 18.5% and 45.6%, respectively. After adjusting for comorbidities and procedural complications, endocarditis after TAVR was associated with 3-fold higher risk of mortality (44.9 vs. 16.2 deaths per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.77 to 3.12; p < 0.0001). End-stage renal disease (aHR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.72 to 2.60), endocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock (aHR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.56 to 4.02), ischemic stroke (aHR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.28), intracerebral hemorrhage (aHR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.76), acute kidney injury (aHR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.63), blood transfusion (aHR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.50), staphylococcal (aHR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.49 to 1.97), and fungal endocarditis (aHR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.39) (p < 0.05 for all) portended higher mortality following endocarditis., Conclusions: The incidence of endocarditis after TAVR is low and declining. However, it is associated with poor prognosis with one-half the patients dying within 1 year., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis (ESRD-HD) and aortic stenosis have poor prognosis. The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk population is debated., Methods: We compared the outcomes among ESRD-HD Medicare beneficiaries who were managed with TAVR, surgical AVR (SAVR), or conservative management for aortic stenosis between 2015 and 2017, using overlap propensity score weighting analysis to control for differences in treatment assignment. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and was compared between treatment groups as well as to age-sex matched mortality for ESRD-HD in the US population. Secondary outcomes included trend of heart failure hospitalizations., Results: A total of 8107 ESRD-HD patients with aortic stenosis were included, 4130 (50%) underwent TAVR, 2565 (31.6%) underwent SAVR, and 1412 (17.4%) were managed conservatively. TAVR patients had more comorbidities and higher frailty compared with the other 2 groups. Thirty-day mortality was lower with TAVR compared with SAVR (4.6% versus 12.8%, P <0.01). After a median follow-up of 465 days (interquartile range, 261-759), on overlap propensity score weighting analysis, there was no difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.91-1.15], P =0.7), and mortality was lower with TAVR compared with conservative management (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.47-0.60], P <0.001). Standardized mortality ratios with TAVR, SAVR, and conservative management compared with age-sex matched ESRD-HD US population were 1.24, 1.27, and 1.83, respectively. The rate of heart failure admissions declined after TAVR (incidence rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.62], P <0.001) and SAVR (incidence rate ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.88], P <0.001)., Conclusions: In ESRD-HD patients with aortic stenosis, mortality was lower in the short-term with TAVR compared with SAVR but comparable in the mid-term. AVR is associated with an improvement in survival and reduction in heart failure hospitalizations compared with conservative management.

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes of transcatheter valve replacement (TAVR) performed in an urgent clinical setting., Methods: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database years 2011-2014 was used to identify hospitalizations for TAVR in the urgent setting. Using propensity score matching, we compared patients who underwent TAVR in nonurgent versus urgent settings., Results: Among 42,154 hospitalizations in which TAVR was performed, 10,114 (24%) underwent urgent TAVR. There was an uptrend in the rate of urgent TAVR procedures (p = .001). The rates of in-hospital mortality among this group did not change during the study period (p = .713). Nonurgent TAVR was associated with lower mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.89, p < .001) compared with urgent TAVR. Nonurgent TAVR was associated with lower incidence of cardiogenic shock (OR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.40-0.53 p < .001), use of mechanical circulatory support devices (OR = 0.69; 95%CI: 0.59-0.82, p < .001), AKI (OR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.56-0.64 p < .001), hemodialysis (OR = 0.67; 95%CI: 0.56-0.80 p < .001), major bleeding (OR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.89-0.99 p = .045) and shorter length of stay (7.08 ± 6.317 vs. 12.39 ± 9.737 days, p < .001). There was no difference in acute stroke (OR = 0.96; 95%CI: 0.81-1.14, p = .636), vascular complications (OR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.89-1.29, p = .492), and pacemaker insertions (OR = 0.92; 95%CI: 0.84-1.01, p = .067) between both groups. Among those undergoing urgent TAVR, subgroup analysis showed higher mortality in patients ≤80 years (p = .033), women (p < .001), chronic kidney disease (p = .001), heart failure (p < .001), and liver disease (p = .003)., Conclusion: In this large nationwide analysis, almost a quarter of TAVR procedures were performed in the urgent settings. Although urgent TAVR was associated with higher mortality and increased complications compared with nonurgent TAVR, the absolute difference in in-hospital mortality was not remarkably higher. Thus, urgent TAVR can be considered as a reasonable approach when indicated., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes with transfemoral (TF) versus transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD)., Methods: We queried the national inpatient sample database (NIS) (2012-2013) to identify patients with PAD who underwent TAVR. We conducted a propensity matching analysis using 25 clinical variables to compare TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality., Results: The analysis included 22,349 patients who underwent TAVR, among those 6692 (29.9%) had PAD. In the matched cohort, in-hospital mortality was similar between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR groups (4.8% vs. 5.1%, OR 0.95; 95%CI 0.74-1.21). TF-TAVR was associated with lower rates of cardiogenic shock (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.50-0.82), use of mechanical circulatory support (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.42-0.75), acute kidney injury (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.67-0.86), hemodialysis (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.36-0.71), major bleeding (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.64-0.80), blood transfusion (OR 0.65; 95%CI 0.58-0.73), discharge to a skilled nursing facility (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.54-0.68) as well as shorter length of hospital stay (8.13 ± 6.76 vs. 10.11 ± 7.80 days) compared with TA-TAVR. However, TF-TAVR was associated with higher rate of vascular complications (11.7% vs. 3.7%, OR 3.40; 95%CI 2.63-4.38), complete heart block (OR 1.52; 95%CI 1.23-1.87), and pacemaker insertion (OR = 1.58; 95%CI: 1.28-1.94). There was no difference between both groups in the rate of cerebrovascular accidents (OR 1.26; 95%CI 0.93-1.72)., Conclusion: In this observational analysis from a large national database, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR among patients with PAD. Further studies are encouraged to identify the optimal access for TAVR in patients with PAD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to address a knowledge gap by examining the incidence, timing, and predictors of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in Medicare beneficiaries., Background: Evidence about incidence and outcomes of ACS after TAVR is scarce., Methods: We identified Medicare patients who underwent TAVR from 2012 to 2017 and were admitted with ACS during follow-up. We compared outcomes based on the type of ACS: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina. In patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS, we compared outcomes based on the treatment strategy (invasive vs. conservative) using inverse probability weighting analysis., Results: Out of 142,845 patients with TAVR, 6,741 patients (4.7%) were admitted with ACS after a median time of 297 days (interquartile range: 85 to 662 days), with 48% of admissions occurring within 6 months. The most common presentation was NSTEMI. Predictors of ACS were history of coronary artery disease, prior revascularization, diabetes, valve-in-TAVR, and acute kidney injury. STEMI was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality compared with NSTEMI (31.4% vs. 15.5% and 51.2% vs. 41.3%, respectively; p < 0.01). Overall, 30.3% of patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS were treated with invasive approach. On inverse probability weighting analysis, invasive approach was associated with lower adjusted long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.73; p < 0.01) and higher risk of repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.43; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: After TAVR, ACS is infrequent (<5%), and the most common presentation is NSTEMI. Occurrence of STEMI after TAVR is associated with a high mortality with nearly one-third of patients dying within 30 days. Optimization of care is needed for post-TAVR ACS patients and if feasible, invasive approach should be considered in these high-risk patients., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To compare the outcomes in trans-femoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) performed with percutaneous approach (PC) versus surgical cut-down (SC). In 13 trials including 5,859 patients (PC = 3447, SC = 2412), the outcomes based on Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria were compared between PC and SC in TF-TAVI. Compared with SC, PC was associated with similar major vascular complications (VCs) (8.7% vs 8.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 1.15, p = 0.53), major bleeding (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.66 to 1.8, p = 0.73), perioperative mortality (5.7% vs 5.2%; OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.49, p = 0.4), urgent surgical repair (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.02, p = 0.3), stroke (3.3% vs 3.9%; OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.36, p = 0.5), myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 1.1%; OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.53 to 2.12, p = 0.86), and renal failure (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.38 to 1.22, p = 0.2), but shorter hospital stay (9.1 ± 8.5 vs 9.6 ± 9.5 days; mean difference = -1.07 day, 95% CI = -2.0 to -0.15, p = 0.02) and less blood transfusion (18.5% vs 25.7%; OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.43-0.86, p = 0.005). Minor VCs occurred more frequently in PC compared to SC (11.9% vs 6.9%; OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.04-2.67, p = 0.03). In conclusion, in TF-TAVI, PC is a safe and feasible alternative to SC, and adopting either approach depends on operator experience after ensuring that vascular access could be safely achieved with that specific technique., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate impact of new-onset and pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) long-term outcomes compared with patients without AF., Background: Pre-existing and new-onset AF in patients undergoing TAVR are associated with poor outcomes., Methods: The study identified 72,660 patients ≥65 years of age who underwent nonapical TAVR between 2014 and 2016 using Medicare inpatient claims. History of AF was defined by diagnoses on claims during the 3 years preceding the TAVR, and new-onset AF was defined as occurrence of AF during the TAVR admission or within 30 days after TAVR in a patient without prior history of AF. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, and readmission for bleeding, stroke, and heart failure (HF)., Results: Overall, 40.7% had pre-existing AF (n = 29,563) and 6.8% experienced new-onset AF (n = 2,948) after TAVR. Mean age was 81.3, 82.4, and 83.8 years in patients with no AF, pre-existing, and new-onset AF, respectively. Pre-existing AF patients had the highest burden of comorbidities. After follow-up of 73,732 person-years, mortality was higher with new-onset AF compared with pre-existing and no AF (29.7, 22.6, and 12.8 per 100 person-years, respectively; p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital TAVR volume, new-onset AF remained associated with higher mortality compared with no AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.068, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.92 to 2.20; p < 0.01) and pre-existing AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.45; p < 0.01). In competing risk analysis, new-onset AF was associated with higher risk of bleeding (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.48 to 1.86; p < 0.01), stroke (sHR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.63 to 2.26; p < 0.01), and HF (sHR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.16; p < 0.01) compared with pre-existing AF., Conclusions: In patients undergoing TAVR, new-onset AF is associated with increased risk of mortality and bleeding, stroke, and HF hospitalizations compared with pre-existing AF or no AF., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Contemporary outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in nonagenarians are unknown. Methods and Results We identified 13 544 nonagenarians (aged 90-100 years) who underwent TAVR between 2012 and 2016 using Medicare claims. Generalized estimating equations were used to study the change in short-term outcomes among nonagenarians over time. We compared outcomes between nonagenarians and non-nonagenarians undergoing TAVR in 2016. A mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of 30-day mortality in nonagenarians in 2016. A center was defined as a high-volume center if it performed ≥100 TAVR procedures per year. After adjusting for changes in patients' characteristics, risk-adjusted 30-day mortality declined in nonagenarians from 9.8% in 2012 to 4.4% in 2016 ( P <0.001), whereas mortality for patients <90 years decreased from 6.4% to 3.5%. In 2016, 35 712 TAVR procedures were performed, of which 12.7% were in nonagenarians. Overall, in-hospital mortality in 2016 was higher in nonagenarians compared with younger patients (2.4% versus 1.7%, P <0.05) but did not differ in analysis limited to high-volume centers (2.2% versus 1.7%; odds ratio: 1.33; 95% CI, 0.97-1.81; P =0.07). Important predictors of 30-day mortality in nonagenarians included in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 8.67; 95% CI, 5.03-15.00), acute kidney injury (aOR: 4.11; 95% CI, 2.90-5.83), blood transfusion (aOR: 2.66; 95% CI, 1.81-3.90), respiratory complications (aOR: 2.96; 95% CI, 1.52-5.76), heart failure (aOR: 1.86; 95% CI, 1.04-3.34), coagulopathy (aOR: 1.59; 95% CI, 1.12-2.26; P <0.05 for all). Conclusions Short-term outcomes after TAVR have improved in nonagenarians. Several procedural complications were associated with increased 30-day mortality among nonagenarians.

Patients with chronic thrombocytopenia (cTCP) were excluded from the pivotal transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) trials. The National Inpatient Sample was queried and propensity score matching was performed to evaluate the prevalence and impact of cTCP on in-hospital clinical outcomes after TAVI. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality in patients with versus without cTCP. Among 38,855 TAVI hospitalizations, 7,105 had a diagnosis of cTCP (18.3%). In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (OR adjusted 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 1.09); however, cTCP was associated with higher risk of acute kidney injury (OR adjusted 1.29; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.54), vascular complications (OR adjusted 1.99; 95% CI 1.22 to 3.25), perioperative blood product transfusion (OR adjusted 1.69; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.01), cardiac tamponade (OR adjusted 4.04; 95% CI 1.51 to 10.82), cardiogenic shock (OR adjusted 1.52; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.15), and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR adjusted 2.32; 95% CI 1.1 to 4.9). In conclusion, cTCP is common in patients who underwent TAVI and is associated with worse postprocedure clinical outcomes, however, with similar in-hospital mortality., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the temporal trends of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), and to compare the outcomes between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population., Background: Randomized trials comparing TAVR to SAVR in AS with bicuspid valve are lacking., Methods: The study queried the National Inpatient Sample database (years 2012 to 2016) to identify hospitalizations for bicuspid AS who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare outcomes of hospitalizations for TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS and TAVR for bicuspid AS versus tricuspid AS., Results: The analysis included 31,895 hospitalizations with bicuspid AS, of whom 1,055 (3.3%) underwent TAVR. TAVR was increasingly utilized during the study period for bicuspid AS (p trend  = 0.002). After matching, TAVR and SAVR had similar in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; odds ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.67). There was no difference between TAVR and SAVR in the rates of cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or acute stroke. TAVR was associated with lower rates of acute myocardial infarction, post-operative bleeding, vascular complications, and discharge to nursing facility as well as a shorter length of hospital stay. On the contrary, TAVR was associated with a higher incidence of complete heart block and permanent pacemaker insertion. TAVR for bicuspid AS was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS., Conclusions: This nationwide analysis showed similar in-hospital mortality for TAVR and SAVR in patients with bicuspid AS. TAVR for bicuspid AS was also associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared with tricuspid AS. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR for bicuspid AS., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine long-term outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in women versus men., Background: TAVR is commonly performed in women. Previous studies have shown conflicting results with respect to sex differences in outcomes with TAVR. In addition, short-term outcomes have primarily been reported., Methods: Electronic search was performed until March 2017 for studies reporting outcomes with TAVR in women versus men. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios were calculated. Outcomes included all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events at short- (30 days) and long-term (>1 year) follow-up., Results: Seventeen studies (8 TAVR registries; 47,188 patients; 49.4% women) were analyzed. Women were older but exhibited fewer comorbidities. At 30 days, women had more bleeding (p < 0.001), vascular complications (p < 0.001), and stroke/transient ischemic attack (p = 0.02), without difference in all-cause (p = 0.19) or cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.91) compared with men. However, female sex was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 1 year (risk ratio: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.79 to 0.91; p < 0.001), and longest available follow-up (mean 3.28 ± 1.04 years; risk ratio: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 0.92; p < 0.001), potentially caused by less moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (p = 0.001), and lower cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.009). The female survival advantage remained consistent across multiple secondary analyses. The risk of stroke, moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, and all-cause mortality seemed to vary based on the type of valve used; however, without significant subgroup interactions., Conclusions: Despite a higher upfront risk of complications, women derive a better long-term survival after TAVR compared with men., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Since its food and drug administration (FDA) approval in 2011, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the highly prevalent disease of aortic stenosis. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the data and considerations for utilization of TAVR in special populations who were either excluded from or not adequately represented in the seminal TAVR trials, due to high-risk valvular and/or systemic factors. These include nonagenarians, patients with renal dysfunction, chronic thrombocytopenia, bicuspid aortic valve, rheumatic valve disease, patients with failed aortic valve bioprosthesis requiring valve-in-valve intervention and patients with mixed aortic valve disease. In short, TAVR is a feasible therapeutic strategy in high-risk and special populations with mortality benefit and improvement in quality of life. Randomized controlled trials in high-risk populations are recommended to confirm results from observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]