Chu, Michael W A

Abstract OBJECTIVES Safety, efficacy and durability are important considerations when selecting a bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study assessed 7-year clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. METHODS Patients indicated for surgical AVR were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized trial, conducted across 39 sites globally. The primary end-point of this analysis was freedom from surgical explant or percutaneous valve-in-valve reintervention due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 7 years of follow-up, determined using Kaplan–Meier (KM) analysis. We also evaluated a composite end-point of SVD and/or severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention. Survival, valve-related safety events and haemodynamic performance were assessed. Deaths and safety events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS A total of 1132 patients underwent surgical AVR. Mean age was 70 years; 854 patients (75%) were men. The mean STS risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%, and 659 patients (58%) had a New York Heart Association classification of I/II. One or more concomitant procedures were performed in 577 patients (51%). At 7 years, the Kaplan–Meier rate of freedom from SVD/severe haemodynamic dysfunction requiring reintervention was 1.2% (0.5–2.5%) with no cases adjudicated as SVD. The survival rate was 82.6% (79.5–85.0%). The KM event rate was 5.7% (4.3–7.7%) for reintervention, 6.3% (4.9–8.3%) for endocarditis and 0.4% (0.1–1.1%) for valve thrombosis. Mean aortic gradient, dimensionless velocity index and effective orifice area were 13.8 ± 5.9 mmHg, 0.42 ± 0.09 and 1.99 ± 0.53 cm2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This analysis demonstrated excellent durability of the Avalus valve with good clinical outcomes and stable haemodynamic performance through 7 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis, but data are limited on younger, low-risk patients. This analysis compares outcomes in low-surgical-risk patients aged <75 years receiving TAVR versus surgery. METHODS: The Evolut Low Risk Trial randomized 1414 low-risk patients to treatment with a supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR or surgery. We compared rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, associated clinical outcomes, and bioprosthetic valve performance at 3 years between TAVR and surgery patients aged <75 years. RESULTS: In patients <75 years, 352 were randomized to TAVR and 351 to surgery. Mean age was 69.1±4.0 years (minimum 51 and maximum 74); Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 1.7±0.6%. At 3 years, all-cause mortality or disabling stroke for TAVR was 5.7% and 8.0% for surgery ( P =0.241). Although there was no difference between TAVR and surgery in all-cause mortality, the incidence of disabling stroke was lower with TAVR (0.6%) than surgery (2.9%; P =0.019), while surgery was associated with a lower incidence of pacemaker implantation (7.1%) compared with TAVR (21.0%; P <0.001). Valve reintervention rates (TAVR 1.5%, surgery 1.5%, P =0.962) were low in both groups. Valve performance was significantly better with TAVR than surgery with lower mean aortic gradients ( P <0.001) and lower rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch ( P <0.001). Rates of valve thrombosis and endocarditis were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in rates of residual ≥moderate paravalvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients <75 years treated with supra-annular, self-expanding TAVR had comparable 3-year all-cause mortality and lower disabling stroke compared with patients treated with surgery. There was significantly better valve performance in patients treated with TAVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.

Objective To describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods Patients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new stented bioprosthesis at 25 centres in North America (Canada and the USA) and 13 centres in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Switzerland and Italy). While all patients underwent implantation with the same bioprosthetic model, perioperative management was left to the discretion of participating centres. Perioperative care was described in detail including outcomes up to 1-year follow-up. Results Among 1118 patients, 643 (58%) were implanted in North America, and 475 (42%) were implanted in Europe. Patients in Europe were older, had a lower body mass index, less bicuspid disease and worse degree of aortic stenosis at baseline. In Europe, anticoagulant therapy at discharge was more aggressive, whereas length of stay was longer, and discharges directly to home were less common. Rehospitalisation risk was lower in Europe at 30 days (8.5% vs 15.9%) but converged at 1-year follow-up (26.5% vs 28.1%). Within continents, there were major differences between individual countries concerning perioperative management. Conclusion Contemporary perioperative management of SAVR patients varies between North America and Europe in patient selection, procedural techniques, antithrombotic regimen and discharge management. Furthermore, rehospitalisation differed largely between continents and countries. Hence, geographical setting must be considered during design and interpretation of trials on SAVR. Trial registration number NCT02088554.

Objective Emerging off-pump beating heart valve repair techniques offer patients less invasive alternatives for mitral valve (MV) repair. However, most of these techniques rely on the limited spatial and temporal resolution of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) alone, which can make tool visualization and guidance challenging. Methods Using a magnetic tracking system and integrated sensors, we created an augmented reality (AR) environment displaying virtual representations of important intracardiac landmarks registered to biplane TEE imaging. In a porcine model, we evaluated the AR guidance system versus TEE alone using the transapically delivered NeoChord DS1000 system to perform MV repair with chordal reconstruction. Results Successful tool navigation from left ventricular apex to MV leaflet was achieved in 12 of 12 and 9 of 12 (P = 0.2) attempts with AR imaging and TEE alone, respectively. The distance errors of the tracked tool tip from the intended midline trajectory (5.2 ± 2.4 mm vs 16.8 ± 10.9 mm, P = 0.003), navigation times (16.7 ± 8.0 seconds vs 92.0 ± 84.5 seconds, P = 0.004), and total path lengths (225.2 ± 120.3 mm vs 1128.9 ± 931.1 mm, P = 0.003) were significantly shorter in the AR-guided trials compared with navigation with TEE alone. Furthermore, the potential for injury to other intracardiac structures was nearly 40-fold lower when using the AR imaging for tool navigation. The AR guidance also seemed to shorten the learning curve for novice surgeons. Conclusions Augmented reality–enhanced TEE facilitates more direct and safe intracardiac navigation of the NeoChord DS tool from left ventricular apex to MV leaflet. Tracked tool path results demonstrate fourfold improved accuracy, fivefold shorter navigation times, and overall improved safety with AR imaging guidance.