BACKGROUND: The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) trial showed that mortality at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. We report here the 5-year outcomes. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 25 hospitals, in Canada (two), Germany (one), and the USA (23). We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to randomly assign high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis to either SAVR or TAVR with a balloon-expandable bovine pericardial tissue valve by either a transfemoral or transapical approach. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the trial was all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat population at 1 year, we present here predefined outcomes at 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00530894. FINDINGS: We screened 3105 patients, of whom 699 were enrolled (348 assigned to TAVR, 351 assigned to SAVR). Overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 11.7%. At 5 years, risk of death was 67.8% in the TAVR group compared with 62.4% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.24; p=0.76). We recorded no structural valve deterioration requiring surgical valve replacement in either group. Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation occurred in 40 (14%) of 280 patients in the TAVR group and two (1%) of 228 in the SAVR group (p<0.0001), and was associated with increased 5-year risk of mortality in the TAVR group (72.4% for moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 56.6% for those with mild aortic regurgitation or less; p=0.003). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that TAVR as an alternative to surgery for patients with high surgical risk results in similar clinical outcomes. FUNDING: Edwards Lifesciences.

BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement. RESULTS: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (+/-SD) age of the patients was 79.8+/-6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5+/-1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation may complicate transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Available evidence on predictors of PPM is sparse and derived from small studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to provide summary effect estimates for clinically useful predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. METHODS: We performed a systematic search for studies that reported the incidence of PPM implantation after TAVR and that provided raw data for the predictors of interest. Data on study, patient, and procedural characteristics were abstracted. Crude risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each predictor were calculated by use of random effects models. Stratified analyses by type of implanted valve were performed. RESULTS: We obtained data from 41 studies that included 11,210 TAVR patients, of whom 17% required PPM implantation after intervention. The rate of PPM ranged from 2% to 51% in individual studies (with a median of 28% for the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System [MCRS] and 6% for the Edwards SAPIEN valve [ESV]). The summary estimates indicated increased risk of PPM after TAVR for men (RR: 1.23; p < 0.01); for patients with first-degree AV block (RR: 1.52; p < 0.01), left anterior hemiblock (RR: 1.62; p < 0.01), or right bundle branch block (RR: 2.89; p < 0.01) at baseline; and for patients with intraprocedural AV block (RR: 3.49; p < 0.01). These variables remained significant predictors when only patients treated with the MCRS bioprosthesis were considered. The data for ESV were limited. Unadjusted estimates indicated a 2.5-fold higher risk for PPM implantation for patients who received the MCRS than for those who received the ESV. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, baseline conduction disturbances, and intraprocedural AV block emerged as predictors of PPM implantation after TAVR. This study provides useful tools to identify high-risk patients and to guide clinical decision making before and after intervention.

BACKGROUND: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been used as a bridge to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Such patients are now being referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We sought to study the indications and outcomes of BAV in patients with severe AS in the pre-TAVI era. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients with severe AS undergoing BAV from 1990 to 2005. In these patients with no immediate surgical option, BAV was attempted to temporarily improve hemodynamics, with a goal to improve general health of the patient, and ultimately AVR. RESULTS: A total of 99 BAVs (eight repeats, one second repeat) were performed in 90 consecutive patients. Baseline ejection fraction was

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the role of balloon size during pre-implantation valvuloplasty in predicting AR and optimal Medtronic CoreValve (MCS) implantation depth. BACKGROUND: Paravalvular aortic regurgitation (AR) is common following MCS implantation. A number of anatomical and procedural variables have been proposed as determinants of AR including degree of valve calcification, valve undersizing and implantation depth. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of 282 patients who had undergone MCS implantation with prior cardiac CT annular sizing between 2007 and 2011. Native valve minimum (Dmin), maximum (Dmax) and arithmetic mean (Dmean) annulus diameters as well as agatston calcium score were recorded. Nominal and achieved balloon size was also recorded. AR was assessed using contrast angiography at the end of each procedure. Implant depth was measured as the mean distance from the nadir of the non- and left coronary sinuses to the distal valve frame angiographically. RESULTS: 29 mm and 26 mm MCS were implanted in 60% and 39% of patients respectively. The majority of patients (N=165) developed AR <2 following MCS implantation. AR >/=3 was observed in 16% of the study population. High agatston calcium score and Dmean were found to be independent predictors of AR >/=3 in multivariate analysis (P<0.0001). Nominal balloon diameter and the number of balloon inflations did not influence AR. However a small achieved balloon diameter-to-Dmean ratio (/=3 (P=0.04). This observation was made irrespective of the degree of valve calcification. A small MCS size-to-Dmean ratio is also associated with AR >/=3 (P=0.001). A mean implantation depth of >/=8+2mm was also associated with AR >/=3. Implantation depth of >/=12 mm was associated with small MCS diameter-to-Dmean ratio and increased 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: CT measured aortic annulus diameter and agatston calcium score remain important predictors of significant AR. Other procedural predictors include valve undersizing and low implantation depth. A small achieved balloon diameter-to-Dmean ratio might also predict AR >/=3. Our findings confirm that a small achieved balloon size during pre-implantation valvuloplasty predicts moderate-severe AR in addition to previously documented factors.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a new option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk. The standard retrograde approach through the femoral artery is contraindicated in case of unfavorable iliofemoral anatomy or extensive disease. In these patients, a trans-subclavian approach may be feasible. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between June 2007 and July 2009, TAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn) was performed in 514 consecutive patients at 13 Italian hospitals, using the subclavian approach in 54 cases. The median logistic EuroSCORE was significantly higher in the subclavian (19.4; interquartile range, 12.5 to 29.8) versus femoral group (25.3; interquartile range, 15.1 to 36.6) (P=0.03), as well as the rate of comorbidities. Procedural success was obtained in 100% versus 98.4% of the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively (P=0.62), with intraprocedural mortality of 0% versus 0.9% (P=1.00). The most common in-hospital complications were a new left bundle-branch block (22.4%) and the need for pacemaker (16.3%). No specific complications for the subclavian access (vessel rupture, vertebral or internal mammary ischemia) were reported. The learning curve for the subclavian approach led to a wider use of local anesthesia. Thirty-day mortality was 0% versus 6.1% in the subclavian versus femoral groups, respectively (P=0.13). Six-month mortality rate was 9.4% versus 15.8% (P=0.44), whereas valve-related adverse events were 13.6% versus 13.9% (P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI through the subclavian approach appeared feasible and safe, with excellent procedural success and low in-hospital complication rates. This new technique allows patients with contraindications to the femoral approach to be treated with TAVI.

AIMS: We investigated the impact of the diameter of the valvuloplasty balloon (VB) used for predilation before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on atrioventricular block formation with consecutive need for permanent pacemaker (PP) implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: TAVI was performed in 269 consecutive patients using the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic) via transfemoral access under local anaesthesia with mild analgesic medication. After exclusion of 32 patients with previously implanted PP, 237 patients were included in a retrospective analysis of the impact of VB size on subsequent PP incidence. Implantation success rate was 99.3%. Periprocedural mortality was 0%, and 30-day mortality was 5.9%. PP implantation after TAVI was required by 21.1%. Of 114 patients treated by 25 mm balloon valvuloplasty, a PP was implanted in 27.1%. In 123 patients, who were treated by VB with a

OBJECTIVES: The authors present the UK and Irish real-world learning curve experience of the Evolut R transcatheter heart valve. BACKGROUND: The Evolut R is a self-expanding, repositionable, and fully recapturable second-generation transcatheter heart valve with several novel design features to improve outcomes and reduce complications. METHODS: Clinical, procedural, and 30-day outcome data were prospectively collected for the first 264 patients to receive the Evolut R valve in the United Kingdom and Ireland. RESULTS: A total of 264 consecutive Evolut R implantations were performed across 9 centers. The mean age was 81.1 +/- 7.8 years, and the mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score was 19.9 +/- 13.7%. Procedural indications included aortic stenosis (72.0%), mixed aortic valve disease (17.4%), and failing aortic valve bioprostheses (10.6%). Conscious sedation was used in 39.8% of patients and transfemoral access in 93.6%. The procedural success rate was 91.3%, and paravalvular leak immediately after implantation was mild or less in 92.3%. Major complications were rare: cardiac tamponade in 0.4%, conversion to sternotomy in 0.8%, annular rupture in 0.0%, coronary occlusion in 0.8%, major vascular in 5.3%, acute kidney injury in 6.1%, new permanent pacemaker implantation in 14.7%, and procedure-related death in 0.0%. At 30-day follow-up, survival was 97.7%, paravalvular leak was mild or less in 92.3%, and the stroke rate was 3.8%. CONCLUSIONS: This registry represents the largest published real-world experience of the Evolut R valve. The procedural success rate was high and safety was excellent, comparable with previous studies of the Evolut R valve and other second-generation devices. The low rate of complications represents an improvement on first-generation devices.

BACKGROUND: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement. RESULTS: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (+/-SD) age of the patients was 79.8+/-6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5+/-1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .).

BACKGROUND: MAVERIC (Mitral Valve Repair Clinical Trial) validates the safety and efficacy of the ARTO system. We here report the first two successful cases of utilizing the ARTO system in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) in Asia. METHODS: Two patients, aged 70 and 63, had severe HF with FMR. Transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that the left ventricular ejection fractions were less than 50% with severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in both patients. Optimizing drug treatment could not mitigate their symptoms. Therefore, we used the ARTO system to repair the mitral valve for these patients on March 5 and 6, 2019, respectively. RESULTS: Mitral valve repairs using the ARTO system were successfully performed under general anaesthesia for these two patients. MR was decreased immediately after the procedures in both patients. The 30-day and 3-month transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) revealed a moderate to severe MR in both patients, and the New York Heart Association (NYHA) scales were also partially improved. CONCLUSION: The first two cases in Asia indicate that the ARTO system is feasible for patients with heart failure with FMR, and the patient selection appears to be crucial.

Balloon predilatation has been regarded as an essential step before implanting the self-expandable prosthesis during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Recent evidence showed that without balloon predilatation, an implantation success rate of >95% could be achieved. We report two cases in which balloon predilatation was not performed initially during TAVI but eventually required it to facilitate device crossing and implantation. They illustrated the importance of case selection and alerted us the potential limitation in performing TAVI without balloon predilatation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) without balloon pre-dilation. BACKGROUND: Balloon pre-dilation of the stenosed aortic valve is currently believed to be a necessary step for valve preparation before device placement in patients undergoing TAVI and, therefore, is considered an obligatory part of the procedure. However, clear evidence supporting this policy is lacking. In contrast, pre-dilation might be responsible in part for distal embolizations as well as atrioventricular conduction disturbances seen during TAVI procedures. METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive patients (mean age 80.1 +/- 6.4 years, 53% female, mean logistic EuroScore 23.3 +/- 15.2%) undergoing TAVI using the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) have been prospectively enrolled at 13 international centers. RESULTS: Pre-procedural mean transaortic valve gradient was 47.8 +/- 15.5 mm Hg, mean effective orifice area was 0.67 +/- 0.15 cm(2). Technical success rate was 96.7% (58 of 60) of patients. Post-dilation was performed in 16.7% (10 of 60) of patients. Post-procedural mean valve gradient was 4.4 +/- 2.0 mm Hg. Circular and noncircular valve configuration was present in 41 and 19 cases (68.3% vs. 31.7%), respectively, with similar effective orifice areas (1.74 +/- 0.10 cm(2) vs. 1.71 +/- 0.22 cm(2), p = NS). In-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications occurred in 6.7% (4 of 60), 0%, 5%, and 10% of patients. There was no valve embolization. New permanent pacing was needed in 11.7% (7 of 60) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation without balloon pre-dilation is feasible and safe, resulting in similar acute safety and efficacy as the current standard approach of TAVI with pre-dilation.

BACKGROUND: Balloon valvuloplasty has been considered a mandatory step of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), although it is not without risk. The aim of this work was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of TAVI performed without pre-dilation (direct TAVI) of the stenosed aortic valve. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between June 2012 and June 2013, 55 consecutive TAVI performed without pre-dilation at our institution using the self-expandable CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) were analyzed and compared with 45 pre-dilated TAVI performed the previous year. Inclusion criteria were a symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis. Exclusion criteria were defined as presence of pure aortic regurgitation, degenerated surgical bioprosthesis or bicuspid aortic valve and prior procedure of balloon aortic valvuloplasty performed as a bridge to TAVI. RESULTS: High-burden calcification in the device landing zone, assessed by CT scan, was found in most of the patients. The valve size implanted was similar in both groups. Device success was higher in direct TAVI (85%vs.64%,p=0.014), mostly driven by a significant lower incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL>/=2;9%vs.33%,p=0.02). Safety combined end point at 30 days was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to TAVI with pre-dilation, direct TAVI is feasible regardless of the presence of bulky calcified aortic valve and the valve size implanted. Device success was higher in direct TAVI, mostly driven by a lower incidence of paravalvular leak. Safety at 30 days was similar in two groups.