Shah, Pinak

BACKGROUND: The EARLY TAVR trial (Evaluation of TAVR Compared to Surveillance for Patients with Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) demonstrated that early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was superior to clinical surveillance (CS) in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The relative impact of early TAVR versus CS strategy by age is unknown. METHODS: The study population of the EARLY TAVR trial was stratified into 4 age groups: 65 to 69 years (n=141), 70 to 74 years (n=263), 75 to 79 years (n=250), and ≥80 years (n=247). Associations between age and the trial primary end point of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization; the composite end point of death, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization; and its individual components were examined. Interaction tests evaluated whether the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS differed by age. RESULTS: No interaction was detected between age and the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS for the composites or individual outcomes. We observed lower stroke rates with early TAVR compared with CS in the youngest (65–69 years, absolute risk reduction, 13%; P =0.008) and oldest (≥80 years; absolute risk reduction, 12.3%; P =0.029) age groups. The absolute difference in heart failure hospitalization rates between the early TAVR and CS arms at 2 years was greatest in the oldest patients (≥80 years, 9.1%; 75–79 years, 5.9%; 70–74 years, 5.1%; 65–69 years, 4.4%). In the CS group, time to conversion to AVR was similar across all age groups (median, 11 months; P =0.73). Approximately one-third of younger patients (65–69 years) in the CS arm presented with acute valve syndrome at the time of conversion, the frequency of which tended to increase with age ( P =0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In the EARLY TAVR trial, the relative benefit of early TAVR over CS was consistent among all age groups. The greatest absolute reduction in stroke rate with early TAVR compared with CS appeared in the youngest and oldest groups, whereas reduction in heart failure hospitalization was most pronounced in the oldest patients. These data suggest that early TAVR should be considered in all age groups above 65 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03042104.

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.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve replacement offers a less-invasive alternative for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. Limited experience exists in intermediate-risk patients. We aim to evaluate 1-year outcomes of the PARTNER 3 mitral valve-in-valve study. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled symptomatic patients with a failing mitral bioprosthesis demonstrating greater than or equal to moderate stenosis and regurgitation and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score ≥3% and <8%. A balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valve (SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences) was used via a transeptal approach. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients from 12 sites underwent mitral valve-in-valve from 2018 to 2021. The mean age was 70.1±9.7 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1%±1.6%, and 54% were female. There were no primary end point events (mortality or stroke) through 1 year, and no left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction, endocarditis, or mitral valve reintervention was reported. Six patients (12%) required rehospitalization, including heart failure (n=2), minor procedural side effects (n=2), and valve thrombosis (n=2; both resolved with anticoagulation). An additional valve thrombosis was associated with no significant clinical sequelae. From baseline to 1 year, all subjects with available data had none/trace or mild (grade 1+) mitral regurgitation and the New York Heart Association class improved in 87.2% (41/47) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve-in-valve with a balloon-expandable valve via transseptal approach in intermediate-risk patients was associated with improved symptoms and quality of life, adequate transcatheter valve performance, and no mortality or stroke at 1-year follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03193801.

Introduction: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using aortic transcatheter heart valves (THV) is developing as an alternative to surgery for patients with severe mitral valve disease due to degenerated mitral bioprostheses or failed surgical rings who are poor surgical candidates. Outcomes of off-label procedures in the United States are being collected in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (STS/ACC TVT) Registry. A comprehensive analysis of mitral Valve-in-Valve (VIV) versus Valve-in-Ring (VIR) outcomes has not previously been performed. Objectives: To evaluate in-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes of mitral VIV and VIR procedures in the United States. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the STS/ACC TVT Registry on patients who underwent mitral VIV or VIR procedures. Results: 587 patients underwent TMVR VIV (n=494) or VIR (n=93) procedures between January 2013 and December 2016 at 144 hospitals. Median age was 76 (VIV) and 73 (VIR) years, (p=0.024), 60.9% (VIV) and 44.1% (VIR) were female (p=0.003), median left ventricular ejection fraction was 55% in VIV and 50% in VIR (p <0.001), and median STS score was 10.5% (VIV) and 9.2% (VIR), p=0.131. Transseptal access was utilized in 35% VIV and 46.2% VIR procedures, p=0.081. Procedural success was achieved in 74.4% of VIV and 57.8%VIR (p=0.239). Left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction was more common in VIR (5.4%) vs VIV (0.06%), p=0.003. Post-procedure median mean mitral valve gradient was 4mmHg in both groups. 95.7% of VIV and 86% of VIR patients had post-procedure mitral regurgitation ≤1(+), p<0.001. In-hospital mortality was 6.9% for VIV and 9.7% for VIR (p=0.343). 30-day mortality was 9% for VIV and 12% for VIR (p=0.387). At 30-day follow up, 85.6% of VIV and 77.7% of VIR patients were in New York Heart Association class I or II (p=0.398). Conclusions: TMVR VIV and VIR using aortic transcatheter heart valves in high surgical risk patients are associated with similar in-hospital and 30-day mortality and symptom benefit. LVOT obstruction post-TMVR and residual mitral regurgitation ≥2 (+) were more frequent in VIR procedures. The long-term effect of these procedures is not known and requires further evaluation.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter heart valves has recently become an alternative for patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses, failed surgical repairs with annuloplasty rings or severe mitral annular calcification who are poor surgical candidates. Outcomes of these procedures are collected in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. A comprehensive analysis of mitral valve-in-valve (MViV), mitral valve-in-ring (MViR), and valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) outcomes has not been performed. We sought to evaluate short-term outcomes of early experience with MViV, MViR, and ViMAC in the United States. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Results: Nine hundred three high-risk patients (median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10%) underwent MViV (n=680), MViR (n=123), or ViMAC (n=100) between March 2013 and June 2017 at 172 hospitals. Median age was 75 years, 59.2% female. Technical and procedural success were higher in MViV. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently with ViMAC (ViMAC=10%, MViR=4.9%, MViV=0.7%; P <0.001). In-hospital mortality (MViV=6.3%, MViR=9%, ViMAC=18%; P =0.004) and 30-day mortality (MViV=8.1%, MViR=11.5%, ViMAC=21.8%; P =0.003) were higher in ViMAC. At 30-day follow-up, median mean mitral valve gradient was 7 mm Hg, most patients (96.7%) had mitral regurgitation grade ≤1 (+) and were in New York Heart Association class I to II (81.7%). Conclusions: MViV using aortic balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves is associated with a low complication rate, a 30-day mortality lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and superior short-term outcomes than MViR and ViMAC. At 30 days, patients in all groups experienced improvement of symptoms, and valve performance remained stable. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02245763.