The initial U.S. experience with the Tempo active fixation temporary pacing lead in structural heart interventions

ObjectivesThis multicenter retrospective study of the initial U.S. experience evaluated the safety and efficacy of temporary cardiac pacing with the Tempo® Temporary Pacing Lead.BackgroundDespite increasing use of temporary cardiac pacing with the rapid growth of structural heart procedures, temporary pacing leads have not significantly improved. The Tempo lead is a new temporary pacing lead with a soft tip intended to minimize the risk of perforation and a novel active fixation mechanism designed to enhance lead stability.MethodsData from 269 consecutive structural heart procedures were collected. Outcomes included device safety (absence of clinically significant cardiac perforation, new pericardial effusion, or sustained ventricular arrhythmia) and efficacy (clinically acceptable pacing thresholds with successful pace capture throughout the index procedure). Postprocedure practices and sustained lead performance were also analyzed.ResultsThe Tempo lead was successfully positioned in the right ventricle and achieved pacing in 264 of 269 patients (98.1%). Two patients (0.8%) experienced loss of pace capture. Procedural mean pace capture threshold (PCT) was 0.7 ± 0.8 mA. There were no clinically significant perforations, pericardial effusions, or sustained device‐related arrhythmias. The Tempo lead was left in place postprocedure in 189 patients (71.6%) for mean duration of 43.3 ± 0.7 hr (range 2.5–221.3 hr) with final PCT of 0.84 ± 1.04 mA (n = 80). Of these patients, 84.1% mobilized out of bed with no lead dislodgment.ConclusionThe Tempo lead is safe and effective for temporary cardiac pacing for structural heart procedures, provides stable peri and postprocedural pacing and allows mobilization of patients who require temporary pacing leads.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/1/ccd28476.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/154941/2/ccd28476_am.pd

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

Incidence and Sequelae of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis A PARTNER Trial Cohort-A Analysis

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort.MethodsThe PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm2/m2, moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm2/m2, or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm2/m2. LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts.ResultsThe incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02).ConclusionsIn patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894

Prospective Study of TMVR Using Balloon-Expandable Aortic Transcatheter Valves in MAC: MITRAL Trial 1-Year Outcomes

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year outcomes of valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) in the MITRAL (Mitral Implantation of Transcatheter Valves) trial. BACKGROUND: The MITRAL trial is the first prospective study evaluating the feasibility of ViMAC using balloon-expandable aortic transcatheter heart valves. METHODS: A multicenter prospective study was conducted, enrolling high-risk surgical patients with severe mitral annular calcification and symptomatic severe mitral valve dysfunction at 13 U.S. sites. RESULTS: Between February 2015 and December 2017, 31 patients were enrolled (median age 74.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 71.3 to 81.0 years], 71% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 6.3% [IQR: 5.0% to 8.8%], 87.1% in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). Access was transatrial (48.4%), transseptal (48.4%), or transapical (3.2%). Technical success was 74.2%. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) with hemodynamic compromise occurred in 3 patients (transatrial, n = 1; transseptal, n = 1; transapical, n = 1). After LVOTO occurred in the first 2 patients, pre-emptive alcohol septal ablation was implemented to decrease risk in high-risk patients. No intraprocedural deaths or conversions to open heart surgery occurred during the index procedures. All-cause mortality at 30 days was 16.7% (transatrial, 21.4%; transseptal, 6.7%; transapical, 100% [n = 1]; p = 0.33) and at 1 year was 34.5% (transatrial, 38.5%; transseptal, 26.7%; p = 0.69). At 1-year follow-up, 83.3% of patients were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II, the median mean mitral valve gradient was 6.1 mm Hg (IQR: 5.6 to 7.1 mm Hg), and all patients had ≤1+ mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, ViMAC was associated with symptom improvement and stable transcatheter heart valve performance. Pre-emptive alcohol septal ablation may prevent transcatheter mitral valve replacement-induced LVOTO in patients at risk. Thirty-day mortality of patients treated via transseptal access was lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. Further studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy of ViMAC

Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that among high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, the 1-year survival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical replacement. However, longer-term follow-up is necessary to determine whether TAVR has prolonged benefits. METHODS: At 25 centers, we randomly assigned 699 high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to undergo either surgical aortic-valve replacement or TAVR. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation. RESULTS: The rates of death from any cause were similar in the TAVR and surgery groups (hazard ratio with TAVR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.15; P=0.41) and at 2 years (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were 33.9% in the TAVR group and 35.0% in the surgery group (P=0.78). The frequency of all strokes during follow-up did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.23; P=0.52). At 30 days, strokes were more frequent with TAVR than with surgical replacement (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.12); subsequently, there were 8 additional strokes in the TAVR group and 12 in the surgery group. Improvement in valve areas was similar with TAVR and surgical replacement and was maintained for 2 years. Paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR (P<0.001), and even mild paravalvular regurgitation was associated with increased late mortality (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A 2-year follow-up of patients in the PARTNER trial supports TAVR as an alternative to surgery in high-risk patients. The two treatments were similar with respect to mortality, reduction in symptoms, and improved valve hemodynamics, but paravalvular regurgitation was more frequent after TAVR and was associated with increased late mortality. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.)

Prospective Evaluation of TMVR for Failed Surgical Annuloplasty Rings: MITRAL Trial Valve-in-Ring Arm 1-Year Outcomes

OBJECTIVES: The authors report 1-year outcomes of high-risk patients with failed surgical annuloplasty rings undergoing transseptal mitral valve-in-ring (MViR) with the SAPIEN 3 aortic transcatheter heart valve (THV). BACKGROUND: The MITRAL (Mitral Implantation of Transcatheter Valves) trial is the first prospective study evaluating transseptal MViR with the SAPIEN 3 aortic THV in high-risk patients with failed surgical annuloplasty rings. METHODS: Prospective enrollment of high-risk patients with symptomatic moderate to severe or severe mitral regurgitation (MR) or severe mitral stenosis and failed annuloplasty rings at 13 U.S. sites. The primary safety endpoint was technical success. The primary THV performance endpoint was absence of MR grade ≥2+ or mean mitral valve gradient ≥10 mm Hg (30 days and 1 year). Secondary endpoints included procedural success and all-cause mortality (30 days and 1 year). RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled between January 2016 and October 2017 (median age 71.5 years [interquartile range: 67.0 to 76.8 years], 36.7% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 7.6% [interquartile range: 5.1% to 11.8%], 76.7% in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). Technical success was 66.7% (driven primarily by need for a second valve in 6 patients). There was no intraprocedural mortality or conversion to surgery. The primary performance endpoint was achieved in 85.7% of survivors at 30 days (24 of 28) and 89.5% of patients alive at 1 year with echocardiographic data available (17 of 19). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 6.7% and at 1 year was 23.3%. Among survivors at 1-year follow-up, 84.2% were in New York Heart Association functional class I or II, the median mean mitral valve gradient was 6.0 mm Hg (interquartile range: 4.7 to 7.3 mm Hg), and all had ≤1+ MR. CONCLUSIONS: Transseptal MViR was associated with a 30-day mortality rate lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. At 1 year, transseptal MViR was associated with symptom improvement and stable THV performance

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

Outcomes in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

Cardiolog

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.)