Nicolas Dumonteil

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 replacement for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using a repositionable valve system: 30-day primary endpoint results from the REPRISE II study.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement provides results comparable to those of surgery in patients at high surgical risk, but complications can impact long-term outcomes. The Lotus valve, designed to improve upon earlier devices, is fully repositionable and retrievable, with a unique seal to minimize paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). OBJECTIVES The prospective, single-arm, multicenter REPRISE II study (REpositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System: Evaluation of Safety and Performance) evaluated the transcatheter valve system for treatment of severe symptomatic calcific aortic valve stenosis. METHODS Patients (n = 120; aortic annulus 19 to 27 mm) considered by a multidisciplinary heart team to be at high surgical risk received the valve transfemorally. The primary device performance endpoint, 30-day mean pressure gradient, was assessed by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory and compared with a pre-specified performance goal. The primary safety endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included safety/effectiveness metrics per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. RESULTS Mean age was 84.4 years, 57% of the patients were female, and 76% were New York Heart Association functional class III/IV. Mean aortic valve area was 0.7 ± 0.2 cm(2). The valve was successfully implanted in all patients, with no cases of valve embolization, ectopic valve deployment, or additional valve implantation. All repositioning (n = 26) and retrieval (n = 6) attempts were successful; 34 patients (28.6%) received a permanent pacemaker. The primary device performance endpoint was met, because the mean gradient improved from 46.4 ± 15.0 mm Hg to 11.5 ± 5.2 mm Hg. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 4.2%, and the rate of disabling stroke was 1.7%; 1 (1.0%) patient had moderate PVR, whereas none had severe PVR. CONCLUSIONS REPRISE II demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of the Lotus valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk. The valve could be positioned successfully with minimal PVR. (REPRISE II: REpositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus™ Valve System - Evaluation of Safety and Performance; NCT01627691).

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With the Edwards SAPIEN Versus the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System Devices A Multicenter Collaborative Study: The PRAGMATIC Plus Initiative (Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) versus the Edwards SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (ESV) for severe aortic stenosis. BACKGROUND No large matched comparison study has been conducted so far evaluating both commercially available devices. METHODS The data from databases of 4 experienced European centers were pooled and analyzed. Due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics, propensity score matching was performed. Study objectives were Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS In total, 793 patients were included: 453 (57.1%) treated with the MCV and 340 (42.9%) with the ESV. After propensity matching, 204 patients were identified in each group. At 30 days, there were no differences in all-cause mortality (MCV, 8.8% vs. ESV, 6.4%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.422; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 2.984; p = 0.352), cardiovascular mortality (MCV, 6.9% vs. ESV, 6.4%; HR: 1.083; 95% CI: 0.496 to 2.364; p = 0.842), myocardial infarction (MCV, 0.5% vs. ESV, 1.5%; HR: 0.330; 95% CI: 0.034 to 3.200; p = 0.339), stroke (MCV, 2.9% vs. ESV, 1.0%; HR: 3.061; 95% CI: 0.610 to 15.346; p = 0.174), or device success (MCV, 95.6% vs. ESV, 96.6%; HR: 0.770; 95% CI: 0.281 to 2.108; p = 0.611). Additionally, there were no differences in major vascular complications (MCV, 9.3% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 0.735; 95% CI: 0.391 to 1.382; p = 0.340) or life-threatening bleeding (MCV, 13.7% vs. ESV, 8.8%; HR: 1.644; 95% CI: 0.878 to 3.077; p = 0.120). MCV was associated with more permanent pacemakers (22.5% vs. 5.9%; HR: 4.634; 95% CI: 2.373 to 9.050; p < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in all-cause (MCV, 16.2% vs. ESV, 12.3%; HR: 1.374; 95% CI: 0.785 to 2.407; p = 0.266) or cardiovascular (MCV, 8.3% vs. ESV, 7.4%; HR: 1.145; 95% CI: 0.556 to 12.361; p = 0.713) mortality. CONCLUSIONS No differences between the 2 commercially available transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices were observed at the adjusted analysis in Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes except for the need for permanent pacemakers with the MCV.

Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Access Site Complications With Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Our study objective was to assess the incidence, predictors, and implications of access site complications related to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We pooled the prospective TAVI databases of 5 experienced centers in Europe enrolling only transfemoral cases for this analysis. Access site complications were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium end-point definitions. The global transfemoral TAVI database contained 986 patients. Percutaneous access and closure was performed in 803 patients (81%) and a surgical strategy in 183 (19%). Incidences of major vascular complications, life-threatening/disabling bleeding, and major bleeding were 14.2%, 11%, and 17.8% respectively. In the patient cohort with a completely percutaneous access strategy, major vascular complications and life-threatening/disabling bleedings were related to closure device failure in 64% and 29%, respectively. Female gender (odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 2.36) and use of >19Fr system (2.87, 1.68 to 4.91) were independent predictors for major vascular complications. Female gender (odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 3.17), use of >19Fr system (1.86, 1.02 to 3.38), peripheral arterial disease (2.14, 1.27 to 3.61), learning effect (0.45, 0.27 to 0.73), and percutaneous access strategy (2.39, 1.16 to 4.89) were independently associated with life-threatening/disabling bleedings. In conclusion, transfemoral TAVI is associated with a >10% incidence of major vascular-related complications. A considerable number of these events is related to arteriotomy closure failure. Arterial sheath size and female gender are important determinants of major vascular complications and life-threatening/disabling bleeding.

Adverse impact of bleeding and transfusion on the outcome post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from the Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration Plus (PRAGMATIC Plus) initiative

BACKGROUND Little is known about the impact of bleeding and red blood cells transfusion (RBC) on the outcome post transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS Between November 2005 and August 2011, 943 consecutive patients underwent TAVI. Bleeding was assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. Patients receiving RBC were compared to those not requiring transfusion. RESULTS Life-threatening and major bleedings occurred respectively in 13.9% and 20.9% of the patients, significantly more frequently in the RBC cohort. Vascular complications occurred in 23.2% of the patients. Major and minor vascular complications were more frequent in the RBC group: 19.3 vs 5.2%, P < .001; 15.3 vs 9%, P = .003, respectively. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 7.2%. Of the overall cohort, 38.9% required RBC transfusion; those receiving at least 4 U of RBC had higher 30-day all-cause mortality than those receiving 1 to 4 U of RBC and those not requiring transfusion: 14.4%, vs 6.3% vs 6.3%, respectively, P = .008. By multivariate analysis, transfusion of RBC was associated with an increased 30-day and 1-year mortality. Major stroke and all stages of acute kidney injury were significantly more frequent in the RBC cohort. CONCLUSIONS Bleeding is frequent after TAVI, mainly driven by vascular complications. RBC transfusion was associated with increased mortality at 1 year and increased risk of major stroke and acute kidney injury. Specific scores are needed to identify the patients at higher risk for TAVI-related bleeding and RBC transfusion.

SOURCE 3 Registry: Design and 30-day results of the european postapproval registry of the latest generation of the sapien 3 transcatheter heart valve

Background: The SOURCE 3 Registry (SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) is a European multicenter, observational registry of the latest generation of transcatheter heart valve, the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Its purpose is to document outcomes of clinical safety and performance after European approval was given. Methods: Here, we present the 30-day outcome of the SOURCE 3 Registry. All data are self-reported, and all participating centers have committed to support their consecutive experience with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve, dependent on patient consent, before the start of the study. Adverse events are defined with Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Results: A total of 1950 patients from 80 centers in 10 countries were enrolled between July 2014 and October 2015. Of those, 1947 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 (mean age, 81.6±6.6 years; 48.1% female). Main comorbidities included coronary artery disease (51.5%), renal insufficiency (27.4%), diabetes mellitus (29.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16.0%), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.3±13.2. Transfemoral access was used in 87.1% (n=1695); nontransfemoral, in 252 patients. Conscious sedation was used in 59.9% of transfemoral procedures, and in 50% of patients, TAVI was performed without aortic balloon valvuloplasty. Implantation success (1 valve in the intended location) was 98.3%. Conversion to conventional surgery (0.6%) and use of cardiopulmonary bypass (0.7%) were rare. Adverse events were low, with site-reported 30-day all-cause mortality of 2.2%, cardiovascular mortality of 1.1%, stroke of 1.4%, major vascular complications of 4.1%, life-threatening bleeding of 5%, and post-TAVI pacemaker implantation of 12%. Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation was observed in 3.1% of reporting patients. Conclusions: Results from the SOURCE 3 Registry demonstrate contemporary European trends and good outcomes of TAVI in daily practice when this third-generation TAVI device is used.Background: The SOURCE 3 Registry (SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis European Outcome) is a European multicenter, observational registry of the latest generation of transcatheter heart valve, the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Its purpose is to document outcomes of clinical safety and performance after European approval was given. Methods: Here, we present the 30-day outcome of the SOURCE 3 Registry. All data are self-reported, and all participating centers have committed to support their consecutive experience with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve, dependent on patient consent, before the start of the study. Adverse events are defined with Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria and adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. Results: A total of 1950 patients from 80 centers in 10 countries were enrolled between July 2014 and October 2015. Of those, 1947 patients underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 (mean age, 81.6±6.6 years; 48.1% female). Main comorbidities included coronary artery disease (51.5%), renal insufficiency (27.4%), diabetes mellitus (29.5%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (16.0%), and a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 18.3±13.2. Transfemoral access was used in 87.1% (n=1695); nontransfemoral, in 252 patients. Conscious sedation was used in 59.9% of transfemoral procedures, and in 50% of patients, TAVI was performed without aortic balloon valvuloplasty. Implantation success (1 valve in the intended location) was 98.3%. Conversion to conventional surgery (0.6%) and use of cardiopulmonary bypass (0.7%) were rare. Adverse events were low, with site-reported 30-day all-cause mortality of 2.2%, cardiovascular mortality of 1.1%, stroke of 1.4%, major vascular complications of 4.1%, life-threatening bleeding of 5%, and post-TAVI pacemaker implantation of 12%. Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation was observed in 3.1% of reporting patients. Conclusions: Results from the SOURCE 3 Registry demonstrate contemporary European trends and good outcomes of TAVI in daily practice when this third-generation TAVI device is used. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-16}

Von Willebrand Factor Multimers during Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND Postprocedural aortic regurgitation occurs in 10 to 20% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis. We hypothesized that assessment of defects in high-molecular-weight (HMW) multimers of von Willebrand factor or point-of-care assessment of hemostasis could be used to monitor aortic regurgitation during TAVR. METHODS We enrolled 183 patients undergoing TAVR. Patients with aortic regurgitation after the initial implantation, as identified by means of transesophageal echocardiography, underwent additional balloon dilation to correct aortic regurgitation. HMW multimers and the closure time with adenosine diphosphate (CT-ADP), a point-of-care measure of hemostasis, were assessed at baseline and 5 minutes after each step of the procedure. Mortality was evaluated at 1 year. A second cohort (201 patients) was studied to validate the use of CT-ADP in order to identify patients with aortic regurgitation. RESULTS After the initial implantation, HMW multimers normalized in patients without aortic regurgitation (137 patients). Among the 46 patients with aortic regurgitation, normalization occurred in 20 patients in whom additional balloon dilation was successful but did not occur in the 26 patients with persistent aortic regurgitation. A similar sequence of changes was observed with CT-ADP. A CT-ADP value of more than 180 seconds had sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of 92.3%, 92.4%, and 98.6%, respectively, for aortic regurgitation, with similar results in the validation cohort. Multivariable analyses showed that the values for HMW multimers and CT-ADP at the end of TAVR were each associated with mortality at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS The presence of HMW-multimer defects and a high value for a point-of-care hemostatic test, the CT-ADP, were each predictive of the presence of aortic regurgitation after TAVR and were associated with higher mortality 1 year after the procedure. (Funded by Lille 2 University and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02628509.).

Trends in outcome after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is a viable and safe treatment strategy for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and high operative risk and has been introduced as such in the recently updated European guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease.Our aim was to assess trends in outcome after TF-TAVI. METHODS Propensity score-matched analysis of a multicenter registry of consecutive patients undergoing TF-TAVI subdivided into 3 tertiles based on enrollment date was performed. Three tertiles of 214 propensity score-matched patients were compared. RESULTS With mounting experience and moving from the initial to the last cohort, procedural contrast volume and radiation time decreased. Over time, there were less major vascular complications (15% vs 7.9%, P = .023), life-threatening bleedings (17.8% vs 7.9%, P = .003), and major bleedings (22.4% vs 12.1%, P = .007). Major vascular complications and life-threatening bleedings caused by closure device failure decreased significantly (9.2% vs 3.1% [P = .01] and 5.7% vs 1 % [P = .01], respectively). The combined safety end point dropped from 31.3% in tertile (T) (T1) to 17.8% in T3 (P < .001). By multivariable analysis, the last cohort as compared with the initial cohort was associated with significant reductions in 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.96), stage 3 AKI (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.29-0.93), and the combined safety end point (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.93). One-year survival improved significantly (T1 79% vs T3 86%, P = .016). CONCLUSIONS Over time, TAVI is performed with significant reductions in major vascular complications, life-threatening bleedings, and the combined clinical safety end point and improved 1-year survival.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Transapical Versus Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation: A Multicenter Collaborative Study

BACKGROUND There are no direct comparisons between transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) and transfemoral aortic valve implantation (TF-AVI). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the short-term and midterm outcomes of TA-AVI versus TF-AVI. METHODS Data from four European centers were pooled and analyzed. To minimize differences between TA-AVI and TF-AVI multivariable analysis was used. Study endpoints were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-I criteria at 30 days and 1 year. Primary endpoints of this study were 30-day all-cause mortality and mortality during follow-up. RESULTS A total of 882 patients underwent TAVI, of whom 793 (89.9%) underwent TF-AVI and 89 (10.1%) underwent TA-AVI. Patients undergoing TA-AVI had a higher estimated risk of mortality as defined by the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score (median 27.0, interquartile range [IQR]: 20.2 to 33.8 versus median 20.0, IQR: 12.3 to 27.7; p < 0.001) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (median 10.2, IQR: 5.3 to 9.9 versus median 6.7, IQR: 3.5 to 9.9; p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities. At 30 days, there was an increased risk of all-cause mortality in the TA-AVI group (odds ratio [OR] 3.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43 to 6.82; p = 0.004). TF-AVI was associated with a higher frequency of major (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90; p = 0.031) and minor vascular complications (OR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.71; p = 0.0015). In-hospital stay was significantly longer among patients undergoing TA-AVI (OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.09; p = 0.05). During a median follow-up of 365 days (IQR: 174 to 557), TA-AVI was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% CI: 1.23 to 2.87; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS In institutions performing a low volume of TA-AVI, the technique is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and longer hospital stay but less vascular complications in comparison with TF-AVI. The interaction between experience and type of treatment on outcome requires further investigation before advocating one treatment over the other.