William Merhi

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis.

BACKGROUND We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and an increased risk of death during surgery. METHODS We recruited patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at increased surgical risk as determined by the heart team at each study center. Risk assessment included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predictor Risk of Mortality estimate and consideration of other key risk factors. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to TAVR with the self-expanding transcatheter valve (TAVR group) or to surgical aortic-valve replacement (surgical group). The primary end point was the rate of death from any cause at 1 year, evaluated with the use of both noninferiority and superiority testing. RESULTS A total of 795 patients underwent randomization at 45 centers in the United States. In the as-treated analysis, the rate of death from any cause at 1 year was significantly lower in the TAVR group than in the surgical group (14.2% vs. 19.1%), with an absolute reduction in risk of 4.9 percentage points (upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval, -0.4; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.04 for superiority). The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis. In a hierarchical testing procedure, TAVR was noninferior with respect to echocardiographic indexes of valve stenosis, functional status, and quality of life. Exploratory analyses suggested a reduction in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and no increase in the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding transcatheter aortic-valve bioprosthesis was associated with a significantly higher rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by Medtronic; U.S. CoreValve High Risk Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01240902.).

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

Background Although transcatheter aortic‐valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk. Methods We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate‐risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self‐expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic‐valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic‐valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement. Results A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, ‐5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic‐valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group. Conclusions TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910.)

Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access sites in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed extreme risk of surgery

OBJECTIVES The CoreValve Extreme Risk US Pivotal Trial enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis deemed unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement. Implants were attempted using transfemoral access (n = 489) or an alternative access (n = 150). In present analysis, we sought to examine the safety and efficacy of CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement using alternative access. METHODS The present study included 150 patients with prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy who were treated with the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by way of the subclavian artery (n = 70) or a direct aortic approach (n = 80). The echocardiograms were read by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or major stroke at 12 months. RESULTS The preoperative aortic valve area was 0.72 ± 0.27 cm(2) and mean aortic valve gradient was 49.5 ± 17.0 mm Hg. After the transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the effective aortic valve area was 1.82 ± 0.64 cm(2) at 1 month and 1.85 ± 0.51 cm(2) at 12 months. The mean aortic valve gradient was 9.7 ± 5.8 mm Hg at 30 days and 9.5 ± 5.7 mm Hg at 12 months. The death or major stroke rate was 15.3% at 30 days and 39.4% at 12 months. The individual rate of all-cause mortality and major stroke was 11.3% and 7.5% at 30 days and 36.0% and 9.1% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS These data demonstrate that the CoreValve transcatheter heart valve delivered by an alternative access provides a suitable alternative for treatment of extreme risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, who have prohibitive iliofemoral anatomy and no surgical options.

Outcomes in the Randomized CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial in Patients With a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score of 7% or Less

Importance Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at increased operative risk. There is interest in whether TAVR would benefit patients at lower risk. Objective The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) has trended downward in US TAVR trials and the STS/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. We hypothesized that if the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) alone is sufficient to define decreased risk, the contribution to survival based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult to show improved survival and benefit over SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. This retrospective analysis evaluated patients who underwent an attempted implant and had an STS PROM of 7% or less. The trial was performed at 45 US sites. Patients had severe aortic stenosis and were at increased surgical risk based on their STS PROM score and other risk factors. Interventions Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures We retrospectively stratified patients by the overall median STS PROM score (7%) and analyzed clinical outcomes and quality of life using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in patients with an STS PROM score of 7% or less. Results The mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group. A little more than half were men (57.9% in the TAVR group and 55.8% in the SAVR group). Of 750 patients who underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]). Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95% CI, 19.7-33.0) (log rank P = .01). The 2-year rate of stroke for TAVR vs SAVR was 11.3% vs 15.1% (log rank P = .50). Quality of life by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score showed significant and equivalent increases in both groups at 2 years (mean [SD] TAVR, 20.0 [25.0]; SAVR, 18.6 [23.6]; P = .71; both P < .001 compared with baseline). Medical benefit, defined as alive with a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire summary score of at least 60 and a less than 10-point decrease from baseline, was similar between groups at 2 years (TAVR, 51.0%; SAVR, 44.4%; P = .28). Conclusions and Relevance Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients with STS PROM scores traditionally considered intermediate risk. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

Repair of paravalvular prosthetic mitral valve leaks with septal occluder devices in severely high-risk patients: a word of caution

Paravalvular leak following a mitral valve replacement is a complication seen in approximately 1 of 10 replacements. The corrective method has traditionally been reoperation. Septal occluder devices are more commonly being utilized as an alternative percutaneous correction method. We report the use of septal occluder devices in the repair of mitral paravalvular leak in two patients at severely high EuroSCORE II mortality risk. In both patients, the occluder devices became unstable, leading to a recurrence of severe paravalvular leak.

Hybrid approach to HeartMate II left ventricular assist device exchange

We chose bilateral PAB to minimize risks of complete repair of multiple VSDs in the neonatal period and to reduce potential complications of neoaortic valve insufficiency or root dilation. Palliation can improve physiology, cause some VSDs to close or become restrictive, allow easier technical repair of remaining VSDs, and limit aortic valve insufficiency and root dilation. Recently, the use of Amplatzer septal occluder devices (St Jude Medical, Inc, St Paul, Minn) has been described in older children with multiple VSDs; however, there have been no reports involving neonates. The staged approach described here may be a viable low-risk alternative for patients with TGA and multiple midmuscular and apical VSDs.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Mitral or Tricuspid Regurgitation at Extreme Risk for Surgery

Objectives: Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and severe mitral regurgitation or severe tricuspid regurgitation were excluded from the major transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. We studied these 2 subgroups in patients at extreme risk for surgery in the prospective, nonrandomized, single‐arm CoreValve US Expanded Use Study. Methods: The primary end point was all‐cause mortality or major stroke at 1 year. A favorable medical benefit was defined as a Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score greater than 45 at 6 months and greater than 60 at 1 year and with a less than 10‐point decrease from baseline. Results: There were 53 patients in each group. Baseline characteristics for the severe mitral regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation cohorts were age 84.2 ± 6.4 years and 84.9 ± 6.5 years; male, 29 (54.7%) and 22 (41.5%), and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 9.9% ± 5.0% and 9.2% ± 4.0%, respectively. Improvement in valve regurgitation from baseline to 1 year occurred in 72.7% of the patients with severe mitral regurgitation and in 61.8% of patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation. A favorable medical benefit occurred in 31 of 47 patients (66.0%) with severe mitral regurgitation and 33 of 47 patients (70.2%) with severe tricuspid regurgitation at 6 months, and in 25 of 44 patients (56.8%) with severe mitral regurgitation and 24 of 45 patients (53.3%) with severe tricuspid regurgitation at 1 year. All‐cause mortality or major stroke for the severe mitral regurgitation and severe tricuspid regurgitation cohorts were 11.3% and 3.8% at 30 days and 21.0% and 19.2% at 1 year, respectively. There were no major strokes in either group at 1 year. Conclusions: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe mitral regurgitation or severe tricuspid regurgitation is reasonable and safe and leads to improvement in atrioventricular valve regurgitation.

Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement or Surgical Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes

ISS Fro syl Ce D pa dio Ca og olo Un syl De of BACKGROUND The CoreValve US Pivotal High Risk Trial was the first randomized trial to show superior 1-year mortality of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among high operative mortality–risk patients. OBJECTIVES The authors sought to compare TAVR to SAVR for mid-term 5-year outcomes of safety, performance, and durability. METHODS Surgical high-risk patients were randomized (1:1) to TAVR with the self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR. VARC-1 (Valve Academic Research Consortium I) definitions were applied. Severe hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined as a mean gradient

2-Year Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgical or Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

40 mm Hg or a change in gradient

3-Year Outcomes in High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

20 mm Hg or new severe aortic regurgitation. Five-year follow-up was planned. RESULTS A total of 797 patients were randomized at 45 U.S. centers, of whom 750 underwent an attempted implant (TAVR 1⁄4 391, SAVR 1⁄4 359). The overall mean age was 83 years, and the STS score was 7.4%. All-cause mortality rates at 5 years were 55.3% for TAVR and 55.4% for SAVR. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in mortality. Major stroke rates were 12.3% for TAVR and 13.2% for SAVR. Mean aortic valve gradients were 7.1 3.6 mm Hg for TAVR and 10.9 5.7 mm Hg for SAVR. No clinically significant valve thrombosis was observed. Freedom from severe SVD was 99.2% for TAVR and 98.3% for SAVR (p 1⁄4 0.32), and freedom from valve reintervention was 97.0% for TAVR and 98.9% for SAVR (p 1⁄4 0.04). A permanent pacemaker was implanted in 33.0% of TAVR and 19.8% of SAVR patients at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS This study shows similar mid-term survival and stroke rates in high-risk patients following TAVR or SAVR. Severe structural valve deterioration and valve reinterventions were uncommon.(Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial; NCT01240902). (J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;-:-–-)