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 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.

Background: The best management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear due to the marked inconsistency of the available evidence. Methods: The REVASC-TAVI registry (Management of Myocardial Revascularization in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Coronary Artery Disease) collected data from 30 centers worldwide on patients undergoing TAVI who had significant, stable CAD at preprocedural work-up. For the purposes of this analysis, patients with either complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were compared in a propensity score matched analysis, to take into account of baseline confounders. The primary and co-primary outcomes were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure, respectively, at 2 years. Results: Among 2407 patients enrolled, 675 pairs of patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization were matched. The primary (21.6% versus 18.2%, hazard ratio‚ 0.88 [95% CI, 0.66–1.18]; P =0.38) and co-primary composite (29.0% versus 27.1%, hazard ratio‚ 0.97 [95% CI, 0.76–1.24]; P =0.83) outcome did not differ between patients achieving complete or incomplete myocardial revascularization, respectively. These results were consistent across different prespecified subgroups of patients (< or >75 years of age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score > or or 0.10). Conclusions: The present analysis of the REVASC-TAVI registry showed that, among TAVI patients with significant stable CAD found during the TAVI work-up, completeness of myocardial revascularization achieved either staged or concomitantly with TAVI was similar to a strategy of incomplete revascularization in reducing the risk of all cause death, as well as the risk of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and rehospitalization for heart failure at 2 years, regardless of the clinical and anatomical situations.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requires large‐bore access, which is associated with bleeding and vascular complications. ProGlide and Prostar XL are vascular closure devices widely used in clinical practice, but their comparative efficacy and safety in TAVR is a subject of debate, owing to conflicting results among published studies. We aimed to compare outcomes with Proglide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices after TAVR. Methods and Results: This large‐scale analysis was conducted using RISPEVA, a multicenter national prospective database of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR treated with ProGlide versus Prostar XL vascular closure devices. Both multivariate and propensity score adjustments were performed. A total of 2583 patients were selected. Among them, 1361 received ProGlide and 1222 Prostar XL. The predefined primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, bleeding, and vascular complications assessed at 30 days and 1‐year follow‐up. At 30 days, there was a significantly greater reduction of the primary end point with ProGlide versus Prostar XL (13.8% versus 20.5%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65–0.99]; P =0.043), driven by a reduction of bleeding complications (9.1% versus 11.7%, respectively; multivariate adjusted odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58–0.98]; P =0.046). Propensity score analysis confirmed the significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding risk with ProGlide. No significant differences in the primary end point were found between the 2 vascular closure devices at 1 year of follow‐up (multivariate adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72–1.10]; P =0.902). Comparable results were obtained by propensity score analysis. During the procedure, compared with Prostar XL, ProGlide yielded significant higher device success (99.2% versus 97.5%, respectively; P =0.001). Conclusions: ProGlide has superior efficacy as compared with Prostar XL in TAVR procedures and is associated with a greater reduction of composite adverse events at short‐term, driven by lower bleeding complications. Registration Information: URL: clini​caltr​ials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02713932.