A virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics.... Show moreA virtual workshop was organized by the Heart Valve Collaboratory to identify areas of expert consensus, areas of disagreement, and evidence gaps related to bioprosthetic aortic valve hemodynamics. Impaired functional performance of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement is associated with adverse patient outcomes; however, this assessment is complicated by the lack of standardization for labelling, definitions, and measurement techniques, both after surgical and transcatheter valve replacement. Echocardiography remains the standard assessment methodology because of its ease of performance, widespread availability, ability to do serial measurements over time, and correlation with outcomes. Management of a high gradient after replacement requires integration of the patient's clinical status, physical examination, and multimodality imaging in addition to shared patient decisions regarding treatment options. Future priorities that are underway include efforts to standardize prosthesis sizing and labelling for both surgical and transcatheter valves as well as trials to characterize the consequences of adverse hemodynamics. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Show less
Simonato, M.; Whisenant, B.; Ribeiro, H.B.; Webb, J.G.; Kornowski, R.; Guerrero, M.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2021
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... Show moreBackground: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. Show less
Eltchaninoff, H.; Bonaros, N.; Prendergast, B.; Nietlispach, F.; Vasa-Nicotera, M.; Chieffo, A.; ... ; Tchetche, D. 2020
Background Limited data suggest that transcatheter (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be more effective in female than male patients. To date, most evidence is... Show moreBackground Limited data suggest that transcatheter (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) may be more effective in female than male patients. To date, most evidence is derived from subgroup analyses of large trials, and a dedicated randomized trial evaluating whether there is a difference in outcomes between these interventions in women is warranted. The RHEIA trial will compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR with SAVR in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis requiring aortic valve intervention, irrespective of surgical risk.Methods/Design The RHEIA trial is a prospective, randomized, controlled study that will enroll up to 440 patients across 35 sites in Europe. Women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, with any but prohibitive surgical risk status, will be randomized 1:1 to undergo aortic valve intervention with either transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 or SAPIEN 3 Ultra device or SAVR and followed up for 1 year. The objective is to determine whether TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR in this patient population and, if this is fulfilled whether TAVR is actually superior to SAVR. The primary safety/efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, and re-hospitalization (for valve or procedure-related symptoms or worsening congestive heart failure) at 1 year post-procedure. Other outcomes (assessed at 30 days and/or 1 year) include all-cause mortality; bleeding, vascular, cardiac, cerebrovascular and renal complications; aortic valve prosthesis and left ventricular function; cognitive function, health status, and quality of life.Discussion The RHEIA study has been designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR specifically in women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, irrespective of the level of surgical risk. The results will be the first to provide specific randomized evidence to guide treatment selection in female patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Show less
Rahhab, Z.; Faquir, N. el; Tchetche, D.; Delgado, V.; Kodali, S.; Vollema, E.M.; ... ; Mieghem, N.M. van 2020
This Review discusses the evolving indications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), including the latest clinical trials in young and low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic... Show moreThis Review discusses the evolving indications of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), including the latest clinical trials in young and low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and ongoing studies exploring TAVI for other indications, including severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and pure native aortic regurgitation, highlighting procedural implications and caveats of new and future indications.Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Current guidelines recommend TAVI in patients at increased operative risk of death. Advanced imaging planning, new transcatheter valve platforms, procedure streamlining and growing operator experience have improved procedural safety and bioprosthetic valve performance. As a result, TAVI has been explored for other indications. Two randomized trials published in 2019 to assess TAVI in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low operative risk have set the stage for a new wave of indications. In younger and low-risk patients, TAVI had an early safety benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with faster discharge from hospital and recovery and fewer rehospitalizations. In patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, TAVI has now been explored across the entire spectrum of operative risk, from inoperable to low-risk populations, in properly designed, randomized clinical trials, although data on the long-term durability of these valves are lacking. The use of TAVI in severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, moderate aortic stenosis in combination with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and isolated pure aortic regurgitation is now under investigation in clinical trials. In this Review, we provide our perspective on these evolving indications for TAVI, discuss relevant available data from clinical trials, and highlight procedural implications and caveats of new and future indications. Show less
Ribeiro, H.B.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; Blanke, P.; Leipsic, J.; Park, J.K.; Bapat, V.; ... ; Dvir, D. 2018
