Two-in-one aortic valve sizing and valvuloplasty conductance balloon catheter

BACKGROUND: Inaccurate aortic valve sizing and selection is linked to paravalvular leakage in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Here, a novel sizing valvuloplasty conductance balloon (SVCB) catheter is shown to be accurate, reproducible, unbiased, and provides real-time tool for aortic valve sizing that fits within the standard valvuloplasty procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SVCB catheter is a valvuloplasty device that uses real-time electrical conductance measurements based on Ohm's Law to size the balloon opposed against the aortic valve at any given inflation pressure. Accuracy and repeatability of the SVCB catheter was performed on the bench in phantoms of known dimension and ex vivo in three domestic swine aortic annuli with comparison to computed tomography (CT) and dilator measurements. Procedural workflow and safety was demonstrated in vivo in three additional domestic swine. SVCB catheter measurements had negligible bias or error for bench accuracy considered as the gold standard (Bias: -0.11 ± 0.26 mm; Error: 1.2%), but greater disagreement in ex vivo versus dilators (Bias: -0.3 ± 1.1 mm; Error: 4.5%), and ex vivo versus CT (Bias: -1.0 ± 1.6 mm; Error: 8.7%). The dilator versus CT accuracy showed similar agreement (Bias: -0.9 ± 1.5 mm; Error: 7.3%). Repeatability was excellent on the bench (Bias: 0.02 ± 0.12 mm; Error: 0.5%) and ex vivo (Bias: -0.4 ± 0.9 mm; Error: 4.6%). In animal studies, the device fit well within the procedural workflow with no adverse events or complications. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the clinical relevance of this accurate, repeatable, unbiased, and real-time sizing measurement, the SVCB catheter may provide a useful tool prior to TAVR. These findings merit a future human study

Impact of varying degrees of renal dysfunction on transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement

BackgroundRenal impairment portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The relationship between renal dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is incompletely understood.MethodsA retrospective review of 1336 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR; 2002-2012) and 321 patients undergoing TAVR (2007-2012) was performed. Patients were divided into 3 glomerular filtration rate (GFR) groups: GFR greater than 60 mL/min, GFR 31 to 60 mL/min, and GFR 30 mL/min or less. Logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the TAVR effect on outcomes. Risk adjustments were made using the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM).ResultsTAVR patients were older (82 vs 65 years; P < .001), had a poorer ejection fraction (48% vs 53%; P < .001), were more likely female (45% vs 41%; P = .23), and had a higher STS PROM (11.9% vs 4.6%; P < .001). In-hospital mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR were 3.5% and 4.1%, respectively (P = .60), a result that marginally favors TAVR after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio = .52, P = .06). In SAVR patients, worsening preoperative renal failure was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (P = .004) and hospital (P < .001) and intensive care unit (ICU) (P < .001) lengths of stay. In contrast, worsening renal function did not influence in-hospital mortality (P = .78) and hospital (P < .23) and ICU (P = .88) lengths of stay in TAVR patients.ConclusionsWorsening renal function was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and ICU length of stay in SAVR patients, but not in TAVR patients. This unexpected finding may have important clinical implications in patients with aortic stenosis and preoperative renal dysfunction

Evaluation of flow after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with low-flow aortic stenosis : a secondary analysis of the PARTNER randomized clinical trial

Importance: Low-flow (LF) severe aortic stenosis (AS) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Little is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival. Objective: To determine whether higher flow (left-ventricular stroke volume index [LVSVI]) after transcatheter AVR (TAVR) would indicate better clinical outcomes in this at-risk population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A substudy analysis of data from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized clinical trial and continued-access registry was conducted. A total of 984 participants with evaluable echocardiograms and baseline LF AS (LVSVI =35 mL/m2) were included. The trial was conducted at 26 sites in the United States and Canada. Patients were stratified after TAVR into tertiles by discharge LVSVI status (severe low flow [SLF], moderate low flow [MLF], and normal flow [(NF]). The present study was conducted from May 11, 2007, to January 9, 2012, with data analysis performed from April 25, 2014, to January 21, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Results: Baseline characteristics of 984 patients with LF AS included mean (SD) age, 84 (7) years; 582 (59.1%) men; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, 11.4% (4.0%); and mean LVSVI, 27.6 (5.0) mL/m2. The discharge LVSVI values by group were SLF, 23.1 (3.5) mL/m2; MLF, 31.7 (2.2) mL/m2; and NF, 43.1 (7.0). All-cause mortality at 1 year was SLF, 26.5%; MLF, 20.1%; and NF, 19.6% (P¿=¿.045). Mean LVSVI normalized by 6 months in the MLF (35.9 [9.3] mL/m2) and NF (38.8 [11.1] mL/m2) groups, but remained low in the SLF group at 6 months and 1 year (31.4 [8.4] and 33.0 [8.3] mL/m2], respectively) (P¿<¿.001 for all groups). Reported as multivariate hazard ratio, mortality at 1 year was higher in the SLF group compared with the other groups (1.61; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P¿=¿.004). In addition to SLF, sex (1.59; 95% CI, 1.18-2.13; P¿=¿.002), presence of atrial fibrillation (1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.87; P¿=¿.02), STS score (1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P¿=¿.02), presence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation at discharge (1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P¿=¿.001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P¿=¿.004), and effective orifice area index (1.87; 95% CI, 1.09-3.19; P¿=¿.02) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Severe LF at discharge is associated with an increased risk of mortality following TAVR in patients with severe AS and preexisting LF. The identification of remedial causes of persistent LF after TAVR may represent an opportunity to improve the outcome of these patients

Advances in Transcatheter Electrosurgery for Treating Valvular Heart Disease

Delivery of electrosurgery energy through catheters and guidewires enables interventionists to ‘cut’ through obstructive intravascular lesions or across cardiac chambers. A novel application of transcatheter electrosurgery is to make controlled lacerations in heart valve leaflets. This review describes three applications of transcatheter electrosurgery of aortic and mitral valve leaflets to enable transcatheter heart valve implantation. Intentional laceration of the anterior mitral leaflet to prevent left ventricular outflow obstruction splits and splays the anterior mitral valve and enables transcatheter mitral valve replacement without left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Technique modifications and novel applications are described. Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction enables transcatheter aortic valve replacement without coronary artery obstruction. The technique is described and novel uses, especially in the setting of repeat transcatheter aortic valve replacement, are discussed. Finally, electrosurgical laceration and stabilization of mitral valve clip devices (ELASTA-Clip) enables transcatheter mitral valve replacement after MitraClip implantation. In conclusion, transcatheter electrosurgery is an important and versatile new tool in structural heart intervention

BASILICA Trial: One-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Electrosurgical Leaflet Laceration to Prevent TAVR Coronary Obstruction

Background: Coronary artery obstruction is a rare, devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter electrosurgical aortic leaflet laceration (Bioprosthetic or Native Aortic Scallop Intentional Laceration to Prevent Iatrogenic Coronary Artery Obstruction [BASILICA]) is a novel technique to prevent coronary artery obstruction. We report the 1-year outcomes of the BASILICA trial. Primary end points of 30-day success and safety have been reported previously. Methods: The BASILICA trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm safety and feasibility study. Subjects with severe native or bioprosthetic aortic valve disease at high or extreme risk for surgery, and high risk of coronary artery obstruction, were included. End points at 1 year included death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Source data was independently verified and end points independently adjudicated. Results: Thirty subjects were enrolled between February 2018 and July 2018. At 30 days, BASILICA was successful in 28 subjects (93.3%), there were 3 strokes (10%), including 1 disabling stroke (3.3%), 1 death (3.3%), and 1 periprocedural myocardial infarction (3.3%). Between 30 days and 1 year, there were no additional strokes, no myocardial infarction, and 2 deaths (10% 1-year mortality). No subject needed repeat intervention for aortic valve or coronary disease. Two subjects had infective endocarditis (6.7%), but neither was isolated to the aortic valve. There were no hospital admissions for heart failure. Fourteen (46.7%) subjects required repeat hospital admission for other causes. Aortic valve gradients on echocardiography, New York Heart Association functional class, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores improved from baseline to 30 days and were maintained at 1 year. Conclusions: In these subjects with multiple comorbidities and restrictive anatomy that underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, there was no late stroke, myocardial infarction, or death related to BASILICA. Mitigation of coronary obstruction remained intact at 1 year and was not related to recurrent readmission. These results are reassuring for patients and physicians who wish to avoid the long-term complications related to snorkel stenting

Stratification of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to Surgical Inoperability for Technical Versus Clinical Reasons

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear.MethodsPatients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely.ResultsOf the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts.ConclusionsPatients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894

Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aorticvalve replacement. We evaluated the two procedures in a randomized trial involving intermediate-risk patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, at 57 centers, to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement. The primary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years. The primary hypothesis was that TAVR would not be inferior to surgical replacement. Before randomization, patients were entered into one of two cohorts on the basis of clinical and imaging findings; 76.3% of the patients were included in the transfemoral-access cohort and 23.7% in the transthoracic-access cohort. RESULTS: The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority). At 2 years, the Kaplan–Meier event rates were 19.3% in the TAVR group and 21.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio in the TAVR group, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.09; P=0.25). In the transfemoralaccess cohort, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.00; P=0.05), whereas in the transthoracic-access cohort, outcomes were similar in the two groups. TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surgery and also resulted in lower rates of acute kidney injury, severe bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation; surgery resulted in fewer major vascular complications and less paravalvular aortic regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01314313

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate or high risk for death with surgery, major outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement. There is insufficient evidence regarding the comparison of the two procedures in patients who are at low risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or surgery. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year. Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6 percentage points) and superiority testing were performed in the as-treated population. RESULTS: At 71 centers, 1000 patients underwent randomization. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.9% (with scores ranging from 0 to 100% and higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after the procedure). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.001 for superiority). At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P = 0.02) and in lower rates of death or stroke (P = 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P<0.001). TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization than surgery (P<0.001) and in a lower risk of a poor treatment outcome (death or a low Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 30 days (P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major vascular complications, new permanent pacemaker insertions, or moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with TAVR than with surgery. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.)

Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice. Background: There are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes. Methods: Eight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared. Results: Transcaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P \u3c 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%). Conclusions: Patients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option