Background: The current standard of care for the treatment of patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is surgical mitral valve repair. Transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair with the MitraClip device provides a less invasive treatment option for patients with both primary and secondary MR. Worldwide, >150 000 patients have been treated with the MitraClip device. However, in the United States, MitraClip is approved for use only in primary patients with MR who are at high or prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery. The REPAIR MR (Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery) trial is designed to compare early and late outcomes associated with transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair with the MitraClip and surgical repair of primary MR in older or moderate surgical risk patients. Methods and Results: The REPAIR MR trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel‐controlled, open‐label multicenter, noninferiority trial for the treatment of severe primary MR (verified by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory). Patients with severe MR and indications for surgery because of symptoms (New York Heart Association class II–IV), or without symptoms with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤60%, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >50 mm Hg, or left ventricular end‐systolic diameter ≥40 mm are eligible for the trial provided they meet the moderate surgical risk criteria as follows: (1) ≥75 years of age, or (2) if <75 years of age, then the subject has a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk Of Mortality score of ≥2% for mitral repair (or Society of Thoracic Surgeons replacement score of ≥4%), or the presence of a comorbidity that may introduce a surgery‐specific risk. The local surgeon must determine that the mitral valve can be surgically repaired. Additionally, an independent eligibility committee will confirm that the MR can be reduced to mild or less with both the MitraClip and surgical mitral valve repair with a high degree of certainty. A total of 500 eligible subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the MitraClip device or to undergo surgical mitral valve repair (control group). There are 2 co–primary end points for the trial, both of which will be evaluated at 2 years. Each subject will be followed for 10 years after enrollment. The study has received approval from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and enrolled its first subject in July 2020. Conclusions: The REPAIR MR trial will determine the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair with the MitraClip in patients with primary MR who are at moderate surgical risk and are candidates for surgical MV repair. The trial will generate contemporary comparative clinical evidence for the MitraClip device and surgical MV repair. Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04198870 ; NCT04198870.

Background: The 3M-TAVR trial (3M-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of next-day hospital discharge after transfemoral TAVR with implementation of a minimalist pathway. However, the economic impact of this approach is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated costs for patients undergoing minimalist TAVR compared with conventional TAVR. Methods: We used propensity matching to compare resource utilization and costs (from a US health care system perspective) for patients in the 3M-TAVR trial with those for transfemoral TAVR patients enrolled in the contemporaneous S3i trial (PARTNER SAPIEN-3 Intermediate Risk). Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization for both groups. For the S3i group, all other costs through 30-day follow-up were assessed by linkage with Medicare claims; for 3M, these costs were assessed using regression models derived from S3i cost and resource utilization data. Results: After 1:1 propensity matching, 351 pairs were included in our study (mean age 82, mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score 5.3%). There were no differences in death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the 3M-TAVR and S3i groups through 30-day follow-up. Index hospitalization costs were $10 843/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort, driven by reductions in procedure duration, anesthesia costs, and length of stay. Between discharge and 30 days, costs were similar for the 2 groups such that cumulative 30-day costs were $11 305/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort compared with the S3i cohort ($49 425 versus $60 729, 95% CI for difference $9378 to $13 138; P <0.001). Conclusions: Compared with conventional transfemoral TAVR, use of a minimalist pathway in intermediate-risk patients was associated with similar clinical outcomes and substantial in-hospital cost savings, which were sustained through 30 days. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02287662.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, the durability of bioprostheses is still a matter of concern, and little is known about the management of degenerated TAV. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients with a degenerated TAV treated by means of a second TAVR. Methods: The TRANSIT is an international registry that included cases of degenerated TAVR from 28 centers. Among around 40 000 patients treated with TAVR in the participating centers, 172 underwent a second TAVR: 57 (33%) for a mainly stenotic degenerated TAV, 97 (56%) for a mainly regurgitant TAV, and 18 (11%) for a combined degeneration. Overall, the rate of New York Heart Association class III/IV at presentation was 73.5%. Results: Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 device success rate was 79%, as a consequence of residual gradient (14%) or regurgitation (7%). At 1 month, the overall mortality rate was 2.9%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 3.6% and 7%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. At 1 year, the overall mortality rate was 10%, while rates of new hospitalization and New York Heart Association class III/IV were 7.6% and 5.8%, respectively, without significant difference across the groups. No cases of valve thrombosis were recorded. Conclusions: Selected patients with a degenerated TAV may be safely and successfully treated by means of a second TAVR. This finding is of crucial importance for the adoption of the TAVR technology in a lower risk and younger population. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04500964.