All-cause procedural readmissions following transcatheter aortic valve replacementCentral MessagePerspective

Objective: With expanding eligibility criteria, transcatheter aortic valve replacement is being performed on patients with longer life expectancy, and subsequent procedures after index transcatheter aortic valve replacement are inevitable. This study examines the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing subsequent procedural readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: All patients who underwent index transcatheter aortic valve replacement and were discharged alive from January 2012 to December 2019 at a single institution were evaluated. Study end points were mortality and readmission for procedure with more than 1-day hospital stay. Effect on survival was evaluated by treating procedural readmission as a time-dependent variable by Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk analysis. Results: A total of 1092 patients met inclusion criteria with a median follow-up time of 34 months. A total of 218 patients (20.0%) had 244 subsequent procedural readmissions. During the 244 procedural readmissions, there were 260 procedures; 96 (36.9%) were cardiac (most commonly pacemaker implantation, percutaneous coronary interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacements), and 164 (63.1%) were noncardiac (most commonly orthopedic and gastrointestinal procedures). The overall procedural readmission rates were 32%, 39%, and 42%, and all-cause mortality was 27%, 44%, and 54% at 20, 40, and 60 months, respectively. Procedural readmissions were not associated with a survival penalty in any surgical risk group or on Cox regression (hazard ratio, 1.25; 0.91-1.64, P = .17). Conclusions: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, procedural interventions are seen frequently, with most procedures occurring within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, subsequent procedural readmissions do not appear to have a survival penalty for patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. After transcatheter aortic valve replacement with resolution of aortic stenosis, subsequent procedures can and should be pursued if they are needed

Early outcomes following transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with severe mitral annular calcification

Objective: Implantation of a transcatheter valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) has emerged as an alternative to traditional surgical mitral valve (MV) replacement. Previous studies evaluating ViMAC aggregated transseptal, transapical, and transatrial forms of the procedure, leaving uncertainty about each technique's advantages and disadvantages. Thus, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes specifically for transatrial ViMAC from the largest multicenter registry to-date. Methods: Patients with symptomatic MV dysfunction and severe MAC who underwent ViMAC were enrolled from 12 centers across the United States and Europe. Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the electronic record. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Results: We analyzed 126 patients who underwent ViMAC (median age 76 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 70-82 years], 28.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 6.8% [IQR, 4.0-11.4], and median follow-up 89 days [IQR, 16-383.5]). Sixty-one (48.4%) had isolated mitral stenosis, 25 (19.8%) had isolated mitral regurgitation (MR), and 40 (31.7%) had mixed MV disease. Technical success was achieved in 119 (94.4%) patients. Thirty (23.8%) patients underwent concurrent septal myectomy, and 8 (6.3%) patients experienced left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (7/8 did not undergo myectomy). Five (4.2%) patients of 118 with postprocedure echocardiograms had greater than mild paravalvular leak. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality occurred in 16 and 33 patients, respectively. In multivariable models, moderate or greater MR at baseline was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.99, P = .03). Conclusions: Transatrial ViMAC is safe and feasible in this selected, male-predominant cohort. Patients with significant MR may derive less benefit from ViMAC than patients with mitral stenosis only

Percutaneous vs surgical axillary access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the TAXI registry

N/

Procedural success in transaxillary transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to type of transcatheter heart valve: results from the multicenter TAXI registry

Background: Transaxillary (TAx) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a preferred alternative access in patients ineligible for transfemoral TAVI. Aims: This study used the Trans-AXillary Intervention (TAXI) registry to compare procedural success according to different types of transcatheter heart valves (THV). Methods: For the TAXI registry anonymized data of patients treated with TAx-TAVI were collected from 18 centers. Acute procedural, early and 1-month clinical outcomes were adjudicated in accordance with standardized VARC-3 definitions. Results: From 432 patients, 368 patients (85.3%, SE group) received self-expanding (SE) THV and 64 patients (14.8%, BE group) received balloon-expandable (BE) THV. Imaging revealed lower axillary artery diameters in the SE group (max/min diameter in mm: 8.4/6.6 vs 9.4/6.8 mm; p < 0.001/p = 0.04) but a higher proportion of axillary tortuosity in BE group (62/368, 23.6% vs 26/64, 42.6%; p = 0.004) with steeper aorta-left ventricle (LV) inflow (55° vs 51°; p = 0.002) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT)-LV inflow angles (40.0° vs 24.5°; 0.002). TAx-TAVI was more often conducted by right sided axillary artery in the BE group (33/368, 9.0% vs 17/64, 26.6%; p < 0.001). Device success was higher in the SE group (317/368, 86.1% vs 44/64, 68.8%, p = 0.0015). In logistic regression analysis, BE THV were a risk factor for vascular complications and axillary stent implantation. Conclusions: Both, SE and BE THV can be safely used in TAx-TAVI. However, SE THV were more often used and were associated with a higher rate of device success. While SE THV were associated with lower rates of vascular complications, BE THV were more often used in cases with challenging anatomical circumstances