Prognostic Impact of Underweight (Body Mass Index < 20 kg/m(2)) in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (from the German Aortic Valve Registry [GARY])

According to the Valve Academic Resortium, underweight is one parameter in the definition of frailty, which is associated with increased mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) Aims of our study were (1) to examine the impact of underweight on mortality after TAVI and SAVR and (2) to determine the effect of intervention mode (TAVI vs SAVR) on mortality in underweight patients from the German Aortic Valve Registry. Overall, 35,109 patients treated with TAVI or SAVR were studied. Outcomes of underweight (body mass index [BMI] <20 kg/m(2)) TAVI and SAVR patients were compared using propensity score weighting. Prevalence of underweight was 5.7% in patients who underwent TAVI and 2.9% in patients who underwent SAVR. Underweight patients had significantly increased mortality rates for both treatment strategies compared with normal weight patients (BMI 20 to 30 kg/ m(2)). Comparing underweight TAVI and SAVR-patients using propensity score weighting, no statistically significant differences regarding mortality rates were observed. Subgroup analysis of severely underweight patients (BMI <18.5 kg/m(2)) revealed no significant increase of mortality after TAVI compared with underweight patients (BMI <20 kg/m(2)), whereas severely underweight SAVR patients showed twofold increased mortality rates. In conclusion, underweight in patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR is rare, but it is associated with increased mortality. Especially severely underweight SAVR patients showed excess mortality rates. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus: performance of supra-, intra- and infra-annular transcatheter heart valves

Background A small aortic annulus is associated with increased risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Whether specific transcatheter heart valve (THV) designs yield superior hemodynamic performance in these small anatomies remains unclear. Methods Data from 8411 consecutive patients treated with TAVI from May 2012 to April 2019 at four German centers were retrospectively evaluated. A small aortic annulus was defined as multidetector computed tomography-derived annulus area mild was more frequent after TAVI with self-expanding THV (p = 0.04). Conclusion In this large contemporary multicenter patient population, a substantial number of patients with a small aortic anatomy were left with PPM after TAVI. Self-expanding supra- and intra-annular THV demonstrated superior hemodynamics in these patients at risk, however at the cost of higher rates of residual paravalvular regurgitation. Graphic abstrac

Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Transcatheter Prosthesis Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life expectancy, yet robust data on the durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are limited. Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in whom THVs fail. OBJECTIVES The authors sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR. METHODS The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers. Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively. RESULTS Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 138 beyond 1 year of the initial procedure. For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years. The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p = 0.002) and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 62 (83.8%) and 86 (62.3%) (p = 0.028), respectively. Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 180 patients (85.1%); most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%). At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg; valve area 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2; and regurgitation ≤mild in 91% and 91%, respectively. Peri-procedural complication rates were low (3 stroke [1.4%], 7 valve malposition [3.3%], 2 coronary obstruction [0.9%], 20 new permanent pacemaker [9.6%], no mortality), and symptomatic improvement was substantial. Survival at 30 days was 94.6% and 98.5% (p = 0.101) and 83.6% and 88.3% (p = 0.335) at 1 year for patients presenting with early and late valve dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR. These results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV durability may be a concern

Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to the Initial and Subsequent Valve Type

Background: As transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement is increasingly used in patients with longer life expectancy, a sizable proportion will require redo TAV replacement (TAVR). The unique configuration of balloon-expandable TAV (bTAV) vs a self-expanding TAV (sTAV) potentially affects TAV-in-TAV outcome. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better inform prosthesis selection, TAV-in-TAV outcomes were assessed according to the type of initial and subsequent TAV. Methods: Patients from the Redo-TAVR registry were analyzed using propensity weighting according to their initial valve type (bTAV [n = 115] vs sTAV [n = 106]) and subsequent valve type (bTAV [n = 130] vs sTAV [n = 91]). Results: Patients with failed bTAVs presented later (vs sTAV) (4.9 ± 2.1 years vs 3.7 ± 2.3 years; P < 0.001), with smaller effective orifice area (1.0 ± 0.7 cm2 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 cm2; P = 0.018) and less frequent dominant regurgitation (16.2% vs 47.3%; P < 0.001). Mortality at 30 days was 2.3% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 0% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.499) and 1.7% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 1.0% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.612); procedural safety was 72.6% (TAV-in-bTAV) vs 71.2% (TAV-in-sTAV) (P = 0.817) and 73.2% (bTAV-in-TAV) vs 76.5% (sTAV-in-TAV) (P = 0.590). Device success was similar according to initial valve type but higher with subsequent sTAV vs bTAV (77.2% vs 64.3%; P = 0.045), primarily because of lower residual gradients (10.3 mm Hg [8.9-11.7 mm Hg] vs 15.2 mm Hg [13.2-17.1 mm Hg]; P < 0.001). Residual regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar after bTAV-in-TAV and sTAV-in-TAV (5.7%) and nominally higher after TAV-in-bTAV (9.1%) vs TAV-in-sTAV (4.4%) (P = 0.176). Conclusions: In selected patients, no association was observed between TAV type and redo TAVR safety or mortality, yet subsequent sTAV was associated with higher device success because of lower redo gradients. These findings are preliminary, and more data are needed to guide valve choice for redo TAVR