Harrison, J. Kevin

Background: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (AV) stenosis were excluded from the pivotal evaluations of transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) devices. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AV stenosis in comparison with those with tricuspid AV stenosis. Methods: We used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry (November 2011 through November 2018) to determine device success, procedural outcomes, post-TAVR valve performance, and in-hospital clinical outcomes (mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) according to valve morphology (bicuspid versus tricuspid). Results were stratified by older and current (Sapien 3 and Evolut R) generation valve prostheses. Medicare administrative claims were used to evaluate mortality and stroke to 1 year among eligible individuals (≥65 years). Results: After exclusions, there were 170 959 eligible procedures at 593 sites during the specified interval. Of these, 5412 TAVR procedures (3.2%) were performed in patients with bicuspid AV, including 3705 with current-generation devices. In comparison with patients with tricuspid valves, patients with bicuspid AV were younger and had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Operative Mortality score. When current-generation devices were used to treat patients with bicuspid AV, device success increased (93.5 versus 96.3; P =0.001) and the incidence of 2+ aortic insufficiency declined (14.0% versus 2.7%; P <0.001) in comparison with older-generation devices. With current-generation devices, device success was slightly lower in the bicuspid (versus tricuspid) AV group (96.3% in bicuspid versus 97.4% in tricuspid, P =0.07), with a slightly higher incidence of residual moderate or severe aortic insufficiency among patients with bicuspid AV (2.7% versus 2.1%; P <0.001). A lower 1-year adjusted risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78–0.99]) was observed for patients with bicuspid AV versus patients with tricuspid AV in the Medicare-linked cohort, whereas no difference was observed in the 1-year adjusted risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94–1.39]). Conclusions: Using current-generation devices, procedural, postprocedural, and 1-year outcomes were comparable following TAVR for bicuspid AV versus tricuspid AV disease. With newer-generation devices, TAVR is a viable treatment option for patients with bicuspid AV disease.

Background: Vascular and bleeding complications were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials. Little is known about complication rates in contemporary US clinical practice or clinical outcomes associated with these complications. Methods: In the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, we evaluated patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016. The primary outcomes were in-hospital vascular complications and bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year. P values for trends were calculated for rates over time, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between vascular/bleeding complications and in-hospital clinical outcomes. Results: Overall, 34 893 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 445 hospitals were analyzed. Of these, 9.3% (n=3257) experienced a vascular complication while 7.6% (n=2651) had an in-hospital bleeding event. Rates of both vascular complications and bleeding events decreased over time ( P value for trend test <0.0001); however, there was significant variation in rates across hospital sites (adjusted median rate, 11.4%; IQR, 8.9–14.5). Vascular complications were independently associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.80–2.77]) and death (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.05–1.30]) and rehospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07–1.22]) at 1 year. Bleeding events were also associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.94–4.69]), and with death (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23–1.56]) and hospital readmission (adjusted HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11–1.27]) at 1 year. Conclusions: In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complications and in-hospital bleeding events were common, but rates have declined over time with significant variation in complication rates across hospital sites. Vascular and bleeding complications are both associated with worse short- and long-term clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality. Further innovation to reduce sheath sizes and optimize antithrombotic therapy is necessary to reduce the incidence of these detrimental complications.

Background— Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality, and PAD risk factors overlap with those for aortic stenosis. The prevalence and outcomes associated with PAD in a population undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. Methods and Results— Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry linked to Medicare claims data, we identified patients ≥65 years old undergoing TAVR from 2011 to 2015. We calculated hazard ratios for 1-year adverse outcomes, including mortality, readmission, and bleeding, for patients with PAD compared with those without, adjusting for baseline characteristics and postprocedure medications. Analyses were performed separately by access site (transfemoral and nontransfemoral). Of 19 660 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, 4810 (24.5%) had PAD; 3730 (47.9%) of 7780 patients undergoing nontransfemoral TAVR had PAD. In both groups, patients with PAD were significantly more likely to have coronary and carotid artery diseases. At 1-year follow-up, patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via transfemoral access had a higher incidence of death (16.8% versus 14.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; P =0.01), readmission (45.5% versus 42.1%; hazard ratio, 1.11; P <0.001), and bleeding (23.1% versus 19.7%; hazard ratio, 1.18; P <0.001) compared with patients without PAD. Patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access did not have significantly higher rates of 1-year mortality or readmission compared with patients without PAD. Conclusions— PAD is common among patients undergoing commercial TAVR via transfemoral and nontransfemoral access. Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, PAD is associated with a higher incidence of 1-year adverse outcomes compared with absence of PAD. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01737528.