Kempfert, Jörg

Abstract Objectives Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is rare in patients aged ≤30 years, and data on this population remain limited. This study aimed to characterize the underlying aetiology, and outcomes of invasively treated young patients with TBAD, with a focus on the impact of heritable thoracic aortic disease (HTAD). Methods A retrospective multicentre analysis was conducted across 19 international aortic centres, including 139 patients aged ≤30 years with TBAD. Patients with chronic TBAD (n = 42) were excluded for the final analysis. The cohort was classified as uncomplicated (n = 86) or complicated (n = 53) TBAD. Clinical, radiologic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected using standardized forms. Outcomes were compared between subgroups defined by TBAD complexity, HTAD status, and surgical strategy. Kaplan-Meier and Andersen-Gill analyses were used for survival and recurrent aortic intervention, respectively. Results Mean follow-up time was 6.5 years. HTAD was identified in 57% of patients. Most presented with uncomplicated TBAD (62%), while high-risk uncomplicated cases were uncommon. Endovascular repair was predominant in complicated TBAD, while open repair was more frequent in uncomplicated cases. Early mortality was low (n = 3), and mid-term survival was excellent across all subgroups. HTAD was a significant predictor of recurrent aortic interventions (HR = 3.3, P = .004). No significant differences were observed in survival or reintervention rates between uncomplicated and complicated TBAD or between operative strategies. Conclusions In young patients, TBAD predominantly occurs in the context of HTAD. Both open and endovascular repair are associated with excellent early outcomes and mid-term survival. However, HTAD remains a significant predictor of recurrent aortic interventions.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe self‐expanding, supra‐annular Evolut valve is an established platform for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). Evolut PRO introduced an outer sealing wrap to mitigate paravalvular leakage. We evaluated the 3‐year clinical outcomes and valve performance of the Evolut PRO in standard clinical practice for severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients at intermediate or higher risk for surgery.MethodsThe FORWARD PRO prospective, single‐arm, multicentre, post‐market clinical study enrolled 638 patients with native aortic valve stenosis or failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve undergoing TAVI, at intermediate or high risk, with the Evolut PRO valve. Clinical and serial echocardiographic outcomes were followed‐up for 3 years.ResultsTAVI using Evolut PRO was attempted in 629 AS patients (implanted in 97%) (mean age 81.7 years; STS PROM score, 4.7%). At 3 years all‐cause mortality was 25.0%, disabling stroke 6.5% (all‐cause mortality or disabling stroke, 28.5%) and rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation 24.7%. Excellent valve haemodynamics were maintained (mean gradient 8.8 ± 4.7 mm Hg; mean effective orifice area 2.0 ± 0.5 cm2) at 3 years. In a paired analysis of patients with ≥ mild paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge, more than two‐thirds demonstrated improved PVL at 3 years. Patients with ≥ mild PVL at discharge had higher median total calcium volume than those with no/trace PVL (p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn clinical practice TAVI with the Evolut PRO valve is associated with favorable clinical outcomes and excellent haemodynamic performance out to 3 years. The observation of improvements in PVL over time warrants further research.

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.