Tchétché, Didier

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.

Importance Historically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials. Objective To determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Design, Setting, Participants The Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024. Interventions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV. Main Outcomes and Measures The composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure–related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Results A total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference −2.3%; 95% CI −7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, −33.4%; 95% CI, −40.4 to −26.4; P &amp;lt; .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure. Conclusions and Relevance Among women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250

AbstractObjectivesThe Evolut R FORWARD study confirmed safety and effectivenesss of the Evolut R THV in routine clinical practice out to 1 year. Herein, we report the final 3‐year clinical follow up of the FORWARD study.BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a proven alternative to surgery in elderly patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Long‐term clinical outcome data with the Evolut R platform are scarce.MethodsFORWARD is a prospective multicenter observational study that evaluated the Evolut R system in routine clinical practice at 53 centres. Eligible patients had symptomatic native aortic valve stenosis or failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis and elevated operative risk per Heart‐Team assessment. TAVR was attempted in 1039 patients.ResultsMean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, STS score was 5.5 ± 4.5% and 34.2% were frail. Rates of all‐cause mortality and disabling stroke were 24.8% and 4.8% at 3 years. Early need for a new pacemaker implantation after TAVR (all‐cause mortality: with new PPI; 21.0% vs. without; 22.8%, p = 0.55) and the presence of > trace paravalvular regurgitation (all‐cause mortality: no or trace; 22.0% vs. ≥ mild; 25.5%, p = 0.29) did not affect survival. Between 1 and 3 years incidence rates of valve related intervention, endocarditis and clinically relevant valve thrombosis were low.ConclusionsThe Evolut R valve maintained a favorable safety profile through 3 years in routine clinical practice. Rates of transcatheter heart valve‐related adverse events were low.

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.

Abstract Background Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is commonly used to deploy new bioprosthetic valves inside degenerated surgically implanted aortic valves in high risk patients. The three scoring systems used to assess risk of postprocedural mortality are: Logistic EuroSCORE (LES), EuroSCORE II (ES II), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Objective The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of LES, ES II, and STS in estimating all‐cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve (ViV) implantations, which was not assessed before. Methods Using the Valve‐in‐Valve International Data (VIVID) registry, a total of 1,550 patients from 110 centers were included. The study compared the observed 30‐day overall mortality vs. the respective predicted mortalities calculated by risk scores. The accuracy of prediction models was assessed based on calibration and discrimination. Results Observed mortality at 30 days was 5.3%, while average expected mortalities by LES, ES II and STS were 29.49 (± 17.2), 14.59 (± 8.6), and 9.61 (± 8.51), respectively. All three risk scores overestimated 30‐day mortality with ratios of 0.176 (95% CI 0.138–0.214), 0.342 (95% CI 0.264–0.419), and 0.536 (95% CI 0.421–0.651), respectively. 30‐day mortality ROC curves demonstrated that ES II had the largest AUC at 0.722, followed by STS at 0.704, and LES at 0.698. Conclusions All three scores overestimated mortality at 30 days with ES II showing the highest predictability compared to LES and STS; and therefore, should be recommended for ViV procedures. There is a need for a dedicated scoring system for patients undergoing ViV interventions.