OBJECTIVES The study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having... Show moreOBJECTIVES The study compared 1-year outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) morphology and clinically similar patients having tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology.BACKGROUND There are limited prospective data on TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 device in low-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and bicuspid anatomy.METHODS Low-risk, severe aortic stenosis patients with BAV were candidates for the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) (P3) bicuspid registry or the P3 bicuspid continued access protocol. Patients treated in these registries were pooled and propensity score matched to TAV patients from the P3 randomized TAVR trial. Outcomes were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of death, stroke, and cardiovascular rehospitalization.RESULTS Of 320 total submitted BAV patients, 169 (53%) were treated, and most were Sievers type 1. The remaining 151 patients were excluded caused by anatomic or clinical criteria. Propensity score matching with the P3 TAVR cohort (496 patients) yielded 148 pairs. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics; however, BAV patients had larger annuli and they experienced longer procedure duration. There was no difference in the primary endpoint between BAV and TAV (10.9% vs 10.2%; P = 0.80) or in the rates of the individual components (death: 0.7% vs 1.4%; P = 0.58; stroke: 2.1% vs 2.0%; P = 0.99; cardiovascular rehospitalization: 9.6% vs 9.5%; P = 0.96).CONCLUSIONS Among highly select bicuspid aortic stenosis low-surgical-risk patients without extensive raphe or subannular calcification, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonstrated similar outcomes to a matched cohort of patients with tricuspid aortic stenosis. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the impact of computed tomography (CT)-based area and perimeter oversizing on the incidence of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and valve hemodynamics in... Show moreOBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the impact of computed tomography (CT)-based area and perimeter oversizing on the incidence of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and valve hemodynamics in patients treated with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (THV).BACKGROUND The incremental value of considering annular perimeter or left ventricular outflow tract measurements and the impact of THV oversizing on valve hemodynamics are not well defined.METHODS The PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3) trial included 495 low-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent THV implantation. THV sizing was based on annular area assessed by CT. Area and perimeter-based oversizing was determined using systolic annular CT dimensions and nominal dimensions of the implanted THV. PVR, effective orifice area, and mean gradient were assessed on 30-day transthoracic echocardiography.RESULTS Of 485 patients with available CT and echocardiography data, mean oversizing was 7.9 +/- 8.7% for the annulus area and 2.1 +/- 4.1% for the perimeter. A very low incidence of >= moderate PVR (0.6%) was observed, including patients with minimal annular oversizing. Incidence of >= mild PVR and need for procedural post-dilatation were inversely related to the degree of oversizing. For patients with annular dimensions suitable for 2 THV sizes, the larger THV with both area and perimeter oversizing was associated with the lowest incidence of >= mild PVR (12.0% vs 43.4%; P < 0.0001). Left ventricular outflow tract area oversizing was not associated with PVR. THV prosthesis size, rather than degree of oversizing, had greatest impact on effective orifice area and mean gradient.CONCLUSIONS In low-surgical-risk patients, a low incidence of >= moderate PVR was observed, including patients with minimal THV oversizing. The degree of prosthesis oversizing had the greatest impact on reducing mild PVR and incidence of post-dilatation, without impacting valve hemodynamics. In selected patients with annular dimensions in between 2 valve sizes, the larger THV device oversized to both the annular area and perimeter reduced PVR and optimized THV hemodynamics. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type,... Show moreThis International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes. (Ann Thorac Surg 2021;112:1005-22) 2021 Jointly between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type,... Show moreThis International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes. Show less
This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type,... Show moreThis International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes. Show less
This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion,... Show moreThis International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phe Show less
This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion,... Show moreThis International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes. (Ann Thorac Surg 2021;112:e203-35) 2021 Jointly between The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, and the Radiological Society of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion,... Show moreThis International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes. Show less
AIMS The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for... Show moreAIMS The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.METHODS AND RESULTS Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing & nbsp;definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.CONCLUSIONS Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies. Show less
Aims The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for... Show moreAims The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC), founded in 2010, was intended to (i) identify appropriate clinical endpoints and (ii) standardize definitions of these endpoints for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical trials. Rapid evolution of the field, including the emergence of new complications, expanding clinical indications, and novel therapy strategies have mandated further refinement and expansion of these definitions to ensure clinical relevance. This document provides an update of the most appropriate clinical endpoint definitions to be used in the conduct of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve clinical research.Methods and results Several years after the publication of the VARC-2 manuscript, an in-person meeting was held involving over 50 independent clinical experts representing several professional societies, academic research organizations, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and industry representatives to (i) evaluate utilization of VARC endpoint definitions in clinical research, (ii) discuss the scope of this focused update, and (iii) review and revise specific clinical endpoint definitions. A writing committee of independent experts was convened and subsequently met to further address outstanding issues. There were ongoing discussions with FDA and many experts to develop a new classification schema for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure. Overall, this multi-disciplinary process has resulted in important recommendations for data reporting, clinical research methods, and updated endpoint definitions. New definitions or modifications of existing definitions are being proposed for repeat hospitalizations, access site-related complications, bleeding events, conduction disturbances, cardiac structural complications, and bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure (including valve leaflet thickening and thrombosis). A more granular 5-class grading scheme for paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) is being proposed to help refine the assessment of PVR. Finally, more specific recommendations on quality-of-life assessments have been included, which have been targeted to specific clinical study designs.Conclusions Acknowledging the dynamic and evolving nature of less-invasive aortic valve therapies, further refinements of clinical research processes are required. The adoption of these updated and newly proposed VARC-3 endpoints and definitions will ensure homogenous event reporting, accurate adjudication, and appropriate comparisons of clinical research studies involving devices and new therapeutic strategies. Show less
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has grown exponentially worldwide in the last decade. Due to the higher bleeding risks associated with oral anticoagulation and in patients undergoing... Show moreTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has grown exponentially worldwide in the last decade. Due to the higher bleeding risks associated with oral anticoagulation and in patients undergoing TAVR, antiplatelet therapy is currently considered first-line antithrombotic treatment after TAVR. Recent studies suggest that some patients can develop subclinical transcatheter heart valve (THV) thrombosis after the procedure, whereby thrombus forms on the leaflets that can be a precursor to leaflet dysfunction. Compared with echocardiography, multidetector computed tomography is more sensitive at detecting THV thrombosis. Transcatheter heart valve thrombosis can occur while on dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and thienopyridine but significantly less with anticoagulation. This review summarizes the incidence and diagnostic criteria for THV thrombosis and discusses the pathophysiological mechanisms that may lead to thrombus formation, its natural history, potential clinical implications and treatment for these patients.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
Duncan, A.; Moat, N.; Simonato, M.; Weger, A. de; Kempfert, J.; Eggebrecht, H.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2019
OBJECTIVES A large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic... Show moreOBJECTIVES A large comprehensive analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was performed for failed stentless bioprostheses.BACKGROUND Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to redo surgery for patients with a failing aortic bioprosthesis.METHODS Unadjusted outcome data were collected from the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) registry between 2007 and 2016 from a total of 1,598 aortic ViV procedures (291 stentless, 1,307 stented bioprostheses).RESULTS Bioprosthetic failure was secondary to aortic regurgitation in 56% of stentless and 20% stented devices (p < 0.001). ViV-TAVR access was transfemoral in 71.1% stentless and 74.2% stented ViV-TAVR. Self-expanding devices were more frequently used in stentless ViV-TAVR (56.0% vs. 39.9%; p = 0.05), but there was no difference between balloon-expanding and self-expanding TAVR devices for stented ViV-TAVR (48.6% vs. 45.1%). The degree of oversizing for all mechanisms of bioprosthesis failure was 9 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 6 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR (and 8 +/- 10% for stentless ViV-TAVR vs. 3 +/- 9% for stented ViV-TAVR in patients with predominant aortic regurgitation; both p < 0.001). Initial device malposition (10.3% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.014), second transcatheter device (7.9% vs. 3.4%), coronary obstruction (6.0% vs. 1.5%), and paravalvular leak occurred more frequently in stentless ViV-TAVR (all p < 0.001). Hospital stay duration (median 7 days) was no different, and 30-day (6.6% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.12) and 1-year mortality year (15.8% vs. 12.6%; p = 0.15) were numerically higher, but not statistically different, after stentless ViV-TAVR.CONCLUSIONS Stentless ViV-TAVR is associated with greater periprocedural complications (initial device malposition, second transcatheter device, coronary obstruction, paravalvular leak), but no difference in 30-day and 1-year outcome. (C) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Ribeiro, H.B.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; Blanke, P.; Leipsic, J.; Park, J.K.; Bapat, V.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2018
