Claudia Fiorina

Incidence and Predictors of Early and Late Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in 663 Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background— There is a lack of information on the incidence and predictors of early mortality at 30 days and late mortality between 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the self-expanding CoreValve Revalving prosthesis. Methods and Results— A total of 663 consecutive patients (mean age 81.0±7.3 years) underwent TAVI with the third generation 18-Fr CoreValve device in 14 centers. Procedural success and intraprocedural mortality were 98% and 0.9%, respectively. The cumulative incidences of mortality were 5.4% at 30 days, 12.2% at 6 months, and 15.0% at 1 year. The incidence density of mortality was 12.3 per 100 person-year of observation. Clinical and hemodynamic benefits observed acutely after TAVI were sustained at 1 year. Paravalvular leakages were trace to mild in the majority of cases. Conversion to open heart surgery (odds ratio [OR] 38.68), cardiac tamponade (OR 10.97), major access site complications (OR 8.47), left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR 3.51), prior balloon valvuloplasty (OR 2.87), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.66) were independent predictors of mortality at 30 days, whereas prior stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 5.47), postprocedural paravalvular leak ≥2+ (HR 3.79), prior acute pulmonary edema (HR 2.70), and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.53) were independent predictors of mortality between 30 days and 1 year. Conclusions— Benefit of TAVI with the CoreValve Revalving System is maintained over time up to 1 year, with acceptable mortality rates at various time points. Although procedural complications are strongly associated with early mortality at 30 days, comorbidities and postprocedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation ≥2+ mainly impact late outcomes between 30 days and 1 year.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Failed Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves

IMPORTANCE Owing to a considerable shift toward bioprosthesis implantation rather than mechanical valves, it is expected that patients will increasingly present with degenerated bioprostheses in the next few years. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is a less invasive approach for patients with structural valve deterioration; however, a comprehensive evaluation of survival after the procedure has not yet been performed. OBJECTIVE To determine the survival of patients after transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation inside failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Correlates for survival were evaluated using a multinational valve-in-valve registry that included 459 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves undergoing valve-in-valve implantation between 2007 and May 2013 in 55 centers (mean age, 77.6 [SD, 9.8] years; 56% men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality prediction score, 9.8% [interquartile range, 7.7%-16%]). Surgical valves were classified as small (≤21 mm; 29.7%), intermediate (>21 and <25 mm; 39.3%), and large (≥25 mm; 31%). Implanted devices included both balloon- and self-expandable valves. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survival, stroke, and New York Heart Association functional class. RESULTS Modes of bioprosthesis failure were stenosis (n = 181 [39.4%]), regurgitation (n = 139 [30.3%]), and combined (n = 139 [30.3%]). The stenosis group had a higher percentage of small valves (37% vs 20.9% and 26.6% in the regurgitation and combined groups, respectively; P = .005). Within 1 month following valve-in-valve implantation, 35 (7.6%) patients died, 8 (1.7%) had major stroke, and 313 (92.6%) of surviving patients had good functional status (New York Heart Association class I/II). The overall 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 83.2% (95% CI, 80.8%-84.7%; 62 death events; 228 survivors). Patients in the stenosis group had worse 1-year survival (76.6%; 95% CI, 68.9%-83.1%; 34 deaths; 86 survivors) in comparison with the regurgitation group (91.2%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 10 deaths; 76 survivors) and the combined group (83.9%; 95% CI, 76.8%-91%; 18 deaths; 66 survivors) (P = .01). Similarly, patients with small valves had worse 1-year survival (74.8% [95% CI, 66.2%-83.4%]; 27 deaths; 57 survivors) vs with intermediate-sized valves (81.8%; 95% CI, 75.3%-88.3%; 26 deaths; 92 survivors) and with large valves (93.3%; 95% CI, 85.7%-96.7%; 7 deaths; 73 survivors) (P = .001). Factors associated with mortality within 1 year included having small surgical bioprosthesis (≤21 mm; hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.67; P = .02) and baseline stenosis (vs regurgitation; hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.33-7.08; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this registry of patients who underwent transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, overall 1-year survival was 83.2%. Survival was lower among patients with small bioprostheses and those with predominant surgical valve stenosis.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Bioprosthetic Surgical Valves: Results from the Global Valve-in-Valve Registry

Background— Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. Methods and Results— The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ≤+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. Conclusions— The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-38}Background— Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. Methods and Results— The Global Valve-in-Valve Registry included 202 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves (aged 77.7±10.4 years; 52.5% men) from 38 cardiac centers. Bioprosthesis mode of failure was stenosis (n=85; 42%), regurgitation (n=68; 34%), or combined stenosis and regurgitation (n=49; 24%). Implanted devices included CoreValve (n=124) and Edwards SAPIEN (n=78). Procedural success was achieved in 93.1% of cases. Adverse procedural outcomes included initial device malposition in 15.3% of cases and ostial coronary obstruction in 3.5%. After the procedure, valve maximum/mean gradients were 28.4±14.1/15.9±8.6 mm Hg, and 95% of patients had ⩽+1 degree of aortic regurgitation. At 30-day follow-up, all-cause mortality was 8.4%, and 84.1% of patients were at New York Heart Association functional class I/II. One-year follow-up was obtained in 87 patients, with 85.8% survival of treated patients. Conclusions— The valve-in-valve procedure is clinically effective in the vast majority of patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves. Safety and efficacy concerns include device malposition, ostial coronary obstruction, and high gradients after the procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3-year outcomes of self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis

AIMS The paucity of evidences about the long-term durability of currently available transcatheter prostheses is one of the main issues of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to assess 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI with the third generation CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Incorporation, MN, USA). METHODS AND RESULTS From the Italian CoreValve registry, 181 who underwent TAVI from June 2007 to August 2008 and eligible for 3-year follow-up were analysed. All outcomes were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium. All-cause mortality at 1, 2, and 3 years was 23.6, 30.3, and 34.8%, respectively. Cardiovascular death at 1, 2, and 3 years was 11.2, 12.1, and 13.5%, respectively. The actuarial survival free from a composite of death, major stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening bleeding was 69.6% at 1 year, 63.5% at 2 years, and 59.7% at 3 years. Patients with renal insufficiency had a higher mortality at 3-year follow-up (49.0 vs. 29.2%, P = 0.007); moreover, patients experiencing post-procedural major or life-threatening bleeding had a higher rate of mortality already seen at 30 days (21.6 vs. 2.8%; P < 0.001) and this result was sustained at 3-year follow-up (62.2 vs. 27.7%; P < 0.001). Mean pressure gradients decreased from 52.2 ± 18.1 mmHg (pre-TAVI) to 10.3 ± 3.1 mmHg (1-year post-TAVI) (P < 0.001); aortic valve area increased from 0.6 ± 0.2 cm(2) (pre-TAVI) to 1.8 ± 0.4 cm(2) (1-year post-TAVI); these results remained stable over the 3 years of follow-up. Paravalvular leak was observed in the majority of patients. There were no cases of progression to moderate or severe regurgitation. No cases of structural valve deterioration were observed. CONCLUSION This multicentre study demonstrates that TAVI with the 18-Fr CoreValve ReValving System is associated with sustained clinical and functional cardiovascular benefits in high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis up to 3-year follow-up. Non-cardiac causes accounted for the majority of deaths at follow-up.

5-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve Prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this analysis was to assess 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the current technology of the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota). BACKGROUND There is a paucity of evidence on long-term durability of currently available transcatheter heart valves. METHODS Starting in June 2007, all consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI with the third-generation 18-F CoreValve device in 8 Italian centers were prospectively included in the ClinicalService Project. For the purposes of this study, we included only consecutive patients with 5-year follow-up data available (n = 353) treated from June 2007 to August 2009. All outcomes were reported according to VARC (Valve Academic Research Consortium)-1 criteria. RESULTS All-cause mortality rates at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 21%, 29%, 38%, 48%, and 55.0%, respectively. Cardiovascular mortality rates at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 10%, 14%, 19%, 23%, and 28.0%, respectively. The overall neurological event rate at 5 years was 7.5%, of which more than two-thirds occurred early after the procedure. During follow-up, there were 241 rehospitalizations for cardiovascular reasons in 164 (46%) patients. Among all rehospitalizations, acute heart failure was the most frequently reported (42.7%), followed by requirement of permanent pacemaker implantation (17.4%). On echocardiography, mean transaortic gradients decreased from 55.6 ± 16.8 mm Hg (pre-TAVI) to 12.8 ± 10.9 mm Hg (5-year post-TAVI) (p < 0.001). Late prosthesis failure occurred in 5 cases (1.4%); among these, redo TAVI was successfully carried out in 2 patients (0.6%) presenting with symptomatic prosthesis restenosis. The remaining 3 cases of prosthesis failure did not undergo further invasive interventions. Ten patients (2.8%) showed late mild stenosis with a mean transaortic gradient ranging from 20 to 40 mm Hg. No other cases of structural or nonstructural valvular deterioration were observed. Valve thrombosis or late valve embolization were not reported. CONCLUSIONS TAVI with the currently adopted CoreValve generation was associated with sustained clinical outcomes up to 5-year follow-up, with a low rate (1.4%) of significant prosthetic valve degeneration. The procedure appears to be an adequate and lasting resolution of aortic stenosis in selected high-risk patients.

Interplay Between Mitral Regurgitation and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the CoreValve Revalving System A Multicenter Registry

Background— Little is known of the prognostic significance of mitral regurgitation (MR) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the impact of TAVR on MR severity, and the variables associated with possible post-TAVR improvement in MR. We evaluated these issues in a multicenter registry of patients undergoing CoreValve Revalving System–TAVR. Methods and Results— Among 1007 consecutive patients, 670 (66.5%), 243 (24.1%), and 94 (9.3%) presented with no/mild, moderate, and severe MR, respectively. At 1 month after TAVR, patients with severe or moderate MR showed comparable mortality rates (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.7–1.55; P=0.2), but both were significantly higher compared with patients with mild/no MR (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.78–3.28; P<0.001; and odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1–3.3; P=0.02, respectively). One-year mortality was also similar between patients with severe and those with moderate MR (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.94–2.4; P=0.06) and still significantly higher compared with patients with mild/no MR (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2–3.41; P<0.001; and hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2–2.2; P=0.03, respectively). Severe pulmonary hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and MR more than mild, but not an improvement of ≥1 grade in MR severity, were independent predictors of mortality at 1 year. At 1 year, an improved MR was observed in 47% and 35% of patients with severe and moderate MR, respectively. The rate of low implantation was consistent across groups with improved, unchanged, or worsened MR. A functional type of MR and the absence of severe pulmonary hypertension and atrial fibrillation independently predicted the improvement in MR severity. Conclusions— Baseline MR greater than mild is associated with higher mortality after CoreValve Revalving System–TAVR. A significant improvement in MR was more likely in patients with functional MR and without severe pulmonary hypertension or atrial fibrillation. The improvement in MR did not independently predict mortality.

Impact of coronary artery disease in elderly patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insight from the Italian CoreValve Registry.

BACKGROUND Coronary artery disease (CAD) commonly coexists with degenerative aortic stenosis. The impact of CAD in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) raises concerns due to the lack of comprehensive and consistent data on this topic. We sought to evaluate the impact of CAD on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS Consecutive patients(N=663) who underwent TAVI with the 18-French CoreValve ReValving System (CRS) (Medtronic Inc, MN USA) from June 2007 through December 2009 at 14 institutions across Italy were included in this prospective web-based registry. Four patients were excluded from the analysis due to failure to successfully release the prosthesis inside the native aortic valve. Previous percutaneous or surgical myocardial revascularizations were used to identify the existence of concomitant CAD (N=251; 38%). The primary endpoint was the incidence of Major Adverse Cerebrovascular and Cardiac Events (MACCE) and all-cause death in CAD and no-CAD groups. RESULTS Patients with CAD were no more likely to develop MACCE within 12-months of the procedure than those who did not (CAD group vs no-CAD group, 15.7% vs 18.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.36; p=0.353). The 12-month mortality was 14.5% and 15.9% in CAD group and no-CAD group, respectively (adjusted HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.36; p=0.331). CONCLUSIONS Coexisting CAD does not impact procedural outcomes and mid-term incidence of MACCE and survival in elderly patients undergoing TAVI with CRS prosthesis.

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.

Transcatheter Replacement of Failed Bioprosthetic Valves: Large Multicenter Assessment of the Effect of Implantation Depth on Hemodynamics After Aortic Valve-in-Valve

Background—Transcatheter valve implantation inside failed bioprosthetic surgical valves (valve-in-valve [ViV]) may offer an advantage over reoperation. Supra-annular transcatheter valve position may be advantageous in achieving better hemodynamics after ViV. Our objective was to define targets for implantation that would improve hemodynamics after ViV. Methods and Results—Cases from the Valve-in-Valve International Data (VIVID) registry were analyzed using centralized core laboratory assessment blinded to clinical events. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of elevated postprocedural gradients (mean ≥20 mm Hg). Optimal implantation depths were defined by receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 292 consecutive patients (age, 78.9±8.7 years; 60.3% male; 157 CoreValve Evolut and 135 Sapien XT) were evaluated. High implantation was associated with significantly lower rates of elevated gradients in comparison with low implantation (CoreValve Evolut, 15% versus 34.2%; P=0.03 and Sapien XT, 18.5% versus 43.5%; P=0.03, respectively). Optimal implantation depths were defined: CoreValve Evolut, 0 to 5 mm; Sapien XT, 0 to 2 mm (0–10% frame height); sensitivities, 91.3% and 88.5%, respectively. The strongest independent correlate for elevated gradients after ViV was device position (high: odds ratio, 0.22; confidence interval, 0.1–0.52; P=0.001), in addition to type of device used (CoreValve Evolut: odds ratio, 0.5; confidence interval, 0.28–0.88; P=0.02) and surgical valve mechanism of failure (stenosis/mixed baseline failure: odds ratio, 3.12; confidence interval, 1.51–6.45; P=0.002). Conclusions—High implantation inside failed bioprosthetic valves is a strong independent correlate of lower postprocedural gradients in both self- and balloon-expandable transcatheter valves. These clinical evaluations support specific implantation targets to optimize hemodynamics after ViV.

CoreValve implantation for severe aortic regurgitation: a multicentre registry.

AIMS We sought to evaluate the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve Revalving System (CRS-TAVR) in inoperable patients presenting with severe aortic regurgitation (AR), compared to in patients treated for severe native aortic stenosis (AS). From October 2008 to January 2013, 1,557 consecutive patients undergoing CRS-TAVR, of whom 26 (1.6%) presented with AR, were prospectively followed. Compared with patients with AS, patients with AR were significantly younger (mean age 73±10 vs. 82±6, p=0.02), more frequently in NYHA Class III/IV (95% vs. 73%, p=0.01) and had a higher incidence of severe pulmonary hypertension (sPAP >60 mmHg, 31% vs. 10%, p=0.007). Log EuroSCORE and STS score were similar. VARC-2-defined device success was lower in the AR group (79% vs. 96%, p=0.006). At one month, patients treated for AR had a higher overall mortality (23% vs. 5.9%; OR 4.22 [3.03-8.28], p<0.001) and cardiac mortality (15.3% vs. 4%, OR 4.01 [2.40-7.66], p<0.001). Results were consistent at 12 months: overall mortality (31% vs. 19%, HR 2.1 [1.5-4.41], p<0.001) and cardiac mortality (19.2% vs. 6%, HR 3.1 [2.09-8.22], p<0.001). CRS-TAVR for AR is associated with a significantly higher mortality compared to CRS-TAVR for AS. Considering the ominous prognosis of these patients when treated medically, TAVR may be a reasonable choice in selected patients. In this regard, conventional risk scores have an inadequate predictive value.