Citations

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) can lead to right ventricular failure (RVF) and poor clinical outcomes. The TriClip™ G4 transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) system has shown improved outcomes in TR patients and received FDA approval on April 2, 2024. The FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database collects mandatory manufacturer reports and voluntary provider reports on device-related complications. Methods: We retrieved all TriClip™-related adverse events from the MAUDE database post-FDA approval, excluding duplicate entries and literature reviews. After removing 47 literature reviews and 36 duplicate reports, 443 unique adverse event reports from 407 procedures (some with multiple events) were analyzed between April 2, 2024, and January 31, 2025. Results: SLDA (Single Leaflet Device Attachment) was the most frequent complication, occurring in 204 cases (Figure 1). Detached leaflets included septal (105 cases), anterior (46), posterior (27), lateral (3), multiple (2), and unreported. Contributing factors included poor imaging, tethered leaflet, clip-clip interaction, dense chordae, large right atrium (RA) or gap size, pacer lead, or prior valve intervention. Persistent TR was a common consequence. SLDA was addressed with additional clips in 77 cases (18 requiring multiple clips), no intervention in 55 cases (13 with significant residual TR), repeat TriClip procedures in 16 cases, and surgical repair in 4 cases. Other complications included partial SLDA (23 cases), clip deployment or gripper malfunctions (68), chordal entanglement (41), leaflet entanglement (3), and clip migration/embolization (6). Migrated clips were found in the RA, right atrial appendage, cardiac vein, or pulmonary artery; three required snare retrieval, and three were left in place. Triclip Steerable Guide Catheter (TSGC) malfunctions, such as leaks, loss of column support, and blockages, were reported in 29 cases, with 27 requiring replacement. Miscellaneous events included residual TR, leaflet grasping issues, F-knob malfunction, lock line jams, and TSGC entanglement. Clip opening during Establishing Final Arm Angle (EFAA) occurred in 25 cases, and leaflet puncture in 15 cases, with one requiring surgical intervention. Conclusion: SLDA was the most frequently reported complication following TriClip™ approval, with some cases leading to severe outcomes. Continued surveillance is crucial to assess long-term safety and optimize procedural strategies.

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its association with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (EV‐TAVR).BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment for patients at prohibitive, high, or intermediate surgical risk. PAD is a significant comorbidity in the determination of surgical risk. However, data on association of PAD with outcomes after EV‐TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent EV‐TAVR between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015 were evaluated. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 51,685 patients underwent EV‐TAVR during the study period. Of these, 12,740 (24.6%) had a coexisting diagnosis of PAD. The adjusted odds for in‐hospital mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.83–1.41)], permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 0.98 (0.85–1.14)], conversion to open aortic valve replacement [OR 1.05 (0.49–2.26)], or acute myocardial infarction [OR 1.31(0.99–1.71)] were not different in patients with versus without PAD. However, patients with PAD had greater adjusted odds of vascular complications [OR 1.80 (1.50–2.16)], major bleeding [OR 1.20 (1.09–1.34)], acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR 1.19 (1.05–1.36)], cardiac complications [aOR 1.21 (1.01–1.44)], and stroke [OR 1.39(1.10–1.75)] compared with patients without PAD. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for patients with PAD [7.23 (0.14) days vs. 7.11 (0.1) days, p < 0.001].ConclusionOf patients undergoing EV‐TAVR, ~25% have coexisting PAD. PAD was not associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality but was associated with higher risk of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, stroke, cardiac complications, and longer LOS.

Background Studies have shown that chronic total occlusion ( CTO ) in a noninfarct‐related artery in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction is linked to increased mortality. It remains unclear whether staged revascularization of a noninfarct‐related artery CTO in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction translates to improved outcomes. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with concurrent CTO who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of noninfarct‐related artery CTO versus those who did not. Method and Results We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, and heart failure readmission. Odds ratios ( ORs ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs ) were computed. Random effects model was used and heterogeneity was considered if I 2 >25. Six studies (n=1253 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events ( OR , 0.54; 95% CI , 0.32–0.91), cardiovascular mortality ( OR , 0.43; 95% CI , 0.20–0.95), and heart failure readmissions ( OR , 0.57; 95% CI , 0.36–0.89), favoring the patients in the CTO percutaneous coronary intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for all‐cause mortality ( OR , 0.47; 95% CI , 0.22–1.00), myocardial infarction ( OR , 0.78; 95% CI , 0.41–1.46), repeat revascularization ( OR , 1.13; 95% CI , 0.56–2.27), and stroke ( OR , 0.51; 95% CI , 0.20–1.33). Conclusions In this meta‐analysis, CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of the noninfarct‐related artery in patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure readmissions.

Background— A significant proportion of patients requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) have undergone prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Reoperative heart surgery is associated with increased risk. Data on relative utilization and comparative outcomes of transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical AVR (SAVR) in patients with prior CABG are limited. Methods and Results— We queried the 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify isolated AVR hospitalizations in adults with prior CABG. In-hospital outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR were compared using propensity-matched analysis. Of 147 395 AVRs, 15 055 (10.2%) were in patients with prior CABG. The number of TAVRs in patients with prior CABG increased from 1615 in 2012 to 4400 in 2014, whereas the number of SAVRs decreased from 2285 to 1895 ( P trend <0.001). There were 3880 records in each group in the matched cohort. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with similar in-hospital mortality (2.3% versus 2.4%; P =0.71) but lower incidence of myocardial infarction (1.5% versus 3.4%; P <0.001), stroke (1.4% versus 2.7%; P <0.001), bleeding complications (10.6% versus 24.6%; P <0.001), and acute kidney injury (16.2% versus 19.3%; P <0.001). Requirement for prior permanent pacemaker was higher in the TAVR cohort, whereas the incidence of vascular complications and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was similar in the 2 groups. Average length of stay was shorter in patients undergoing TAVR. Conclusions— TAVR is being increasingly used as the preferred modality of AVR in patients with prior CABG. Compared with SAVR, TAVR is associated with similar in-hospital mortality but lower rates of in-hospital complications in this important subset of patients.

BackgroundBivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI.MethodsWe conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life‐threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel‐Haenszel method.ResultsThree studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20‐0.87). There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62‐1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52‐2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62‐2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70‐1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53‐2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45‐1.01), major and life‐threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37‐1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23‐1.18).ConclusionsIn patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta‐analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR.Methods and ResultsWe comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty‐six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30‐day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28–0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, −2.09; 95% CI, −3.02 to −1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, −25.02; 95% CI, −32.70 to −17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, −1.63; 95% CI, −3.02 to −0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture.ConclusionOur meta‐analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30‐day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.