Kornowski, Ran

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.

Bioprostheses are prone to structural valve degeneration, resulting in limited long-term durability. A significant challenge when comparing the durability of different types of bioprostheses is the lack of a standardized terminology for the definition of a degenerated valve. This issue becomes especially important when we try to compare the degeneration rate of surgically inserted and transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. This document, by the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data), proposes practical and standardized definitions of valve degeneration and provides recommendations for the timing of clinical and imaging follow-up assessments accordingly. Its goal is to improve the quality of research and clinical care for patients with deteriorated bioprostheses by providing objective and strict criteria that can be utilized in future clinical trials. We hope that the adoption of these criteria by both the cardiological and surgical communities will lead to improved comparability and interpretation of durability analyses.