Association between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and subsequent infective endocarditis and in-hospital death

Importance Limited data exist on clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Objective To determine the associated factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients who had infective endocarditis after TAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants The Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry included patients with definite infective endocarditis after TAVR from 47 centers from Europe, North America, and South America between June 2005 and October 2015. EXPOSURE Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditis and infective endocarditis for in-hospital mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Infective endocarditis and in-hospital mortality after infective endocarditis. Results A total of 250 cases of infective endocarditis occurred in 20 006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%; median age, 80 years; 64% men). Median time from TAVR to infective endocarditis was 5.3 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.5-13.4 months). The characteristics associated with higher risk of progressing to infective endocarditis after TAVR was younger age (78.9 years vs 81.8 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), male sex (62.0% vs 49.7%; HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.52), diabetes mellitus (41.7% vs 30.0%; HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29), and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (22.4% vs 14.7%; HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.28-3.28). Health care?associated infective endocarditis was present in 52.8% (95% CI, 46.6%-59.0%) of patients. Enterococci species and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequently isolated microorganisms (24.6%; 95% CI, 19.1%-30.1% and 23.3%; 95% CI, 17.9%-28.7%, respectively). The in-hospital mortality rate was 36% (95% CI, 30.0%-41.9%; 90 deaths; 160 survivors), and surgery was performed in 14.8% (95% CI, 10.4%-19.2%) of patients during the infective endocarditis episode. In-hospital mortality was associated with a higher logistic EuroSCORE (23.1% vs 18.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.03 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05), heart failure (59.3% vs 23.7%; OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.74-6.45), and acute kidney injury (67.4% vs 31.6%; OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.42-5.11). The 2-year mortality rate was 66.7% (95% CI, 59.0%-74.2%; 132 deaths; 115 survivors). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients undergoing TAVR, younger age, male sex, history of diabetes mellitus, and moderate to severe residual aortic regurgitation were significantly associated with an increased risk of infective endocarditis. Patients who developed endocarditis had high rates of in-hospital mortality and 2-year mortality

Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis : Insights From the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry (VIVID)

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with self-expanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico- (n=54) and CoreValve- (n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79\ub18.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1\ub15.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm2; P=0.001), lower mean gradient (14\ub17.5 versus 17\ub17.5 mm Hg; P=0.02), and lower core laboratory-adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P=0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation