O’Neill, Brian

Abstract Background and Aims The TRISCEND II trial demonstrated superior clinical benefits for patients with ≥severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) treated with the EVOQUE transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) system plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone. This work reports 1-year and 18-month outcomes in patients stratified by baseline TR severity. Methods The multicentre, prospective TRISCEND II trial enrolled 400 patients with symptomatic, ≥severe TR, and randomized 2:1 to TTVR (n = 267) or control (n = 133). In a post hoc analysis, patients were stratified into severe TR (n = 172) and massive/torrential TR (n = 220) cohorts. Clinical and quality-of-life outcomes were reported at 1 year, with Kaplan–Meier estimates for all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization assessed at 18 months. Study oversight included an independent echocardiographic core laboratory, clinical events committee, and data safety monitoring board. Results One year after TTVR, TR was ≤mild in 95.2% of severe TR and 95.3% of massive/torrential TR patients. The primary safety and effectiveness endpoint (win ratio) favoured TTVR over control regardless of baseline TR severity: severe {1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 2.43]} and massive/torrential [2.20 (1.55, 3.14)]. At 18 months, TTVR patients had similar mortality to controls [rate difference: severe 0.2% (−11.6, 11.9), massive/torrential −5.8% (−17.6, 6.0)], whereas HF hospitalization rates favoured TTVR in the massive/torrential cohort [vs control, severe 9.8% (−3.0, 22.7), massive/torrential -15.2% (−28.9, −1.5)]. Conclusions Patients with ≥severe TR benefit from TTVR, experiencing improvements in TR severity, functional capacity, and quality of life regardless of baseline TR severity, with a signal for greater benefit in patients with more advanced disease.

AbstractBackgroundDue to elevated surgical risk, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is used as an alternative for treating failed bioprosthetic valves, annuloplasty repairs and mitral annular calcification (MAC). We report the procedural and longitudinal outcomes for each subtype: Mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV), mitral valve‐in‐ring (MViR), and valve‐in‐MAC (ViMAC).MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing TMVR from October 2013 to December 2019 were assessed. Patients at high risk for left ventricular outflow tract obstruction had either alcohol septal ablation or intentional laceration of the anterior leaflet (LAMPOON).ResultsEight‐eight patients underwent TMVR; 38 MViV, 31 MViR, and 19 ViMAC procedures were performed. The median Society of Thoracic Surgery 30‐day predicted risk of mortality was 8.2% (IQR 5.2, 19.9) for all. Sapien 3 (78%) and transseptal access (98%) were utilized in most cases. All‐cause in‐hospital mortality, technical, and procedural success were 8%, 83%, and 66% respectively. Median follow up was 1.4 years (IQR 0.5–2.9 years) and overall survival was 40% at 4 years. Differential survival rates were observed with MViV doing the best, followed by MViR and ViMAC having a <20% survival at 4 years. After adjusting for co‐variates, MViV procedure was the strongest predictor of survival (HR 0.24 [95% CI 0.079–0.7]).ConclusionTMVR is performed in at high‐risk patients with attenuated long‐term survival. MViV has the best success and survival rate, but long‐term survival in MViR and ViMAC is guarded.