Due to bioprosthetic valve degeneration, aortic valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures are increasingly performed. There are no data on long-term outcomes after aortic ViV. Our aim was to perform a large-scale assessment of long-term survival and reintervention after aortic ViV. A total of 1006 aortic ViV procedures performed more than 5 years ago [mean age 77.7 ± 9.7 years; 58.8% male; median STS-PROM score 7.3% (4.2–12.0)] were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with Medtronic self-expandable valves (CoreValve/Evolut, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) (n = 523, 52.0%), Edwards balloon-expandable valves (EBEV, SAPIEN/SAPIEN XT/SAPIEN 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) (n = 435, 43.2%), and other devices (n = 48, 4.8%). Survival was lower at 8 years in patients with small-failed bioprostheses [internal diameter (ID) ≤ 20 mm] compared with those with large-failed bioprostheses (ID > 20 mm) (33.2% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.01). Independent correlates for mortality included smaller-failed bioprosthetic valves [hazard ratio (HR) 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.13)], age [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01–1.45)], and non-transfemoral access [HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11–1.84)]. There were 40 reinterventions after ViV. Independent correlates for all-cause reintervention included pre-existing severe prosthesis–patient mismatch [subhazard ratio (SHR) 4.34 (95% CI 1.31–14.39)], device malposition [SHR 3.75 (95% CI 1.36–10.35)], EBEV [SHR 3.34 (95% CI 1.26–8.85)], and age [SHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.44–0.78)]. The size of the original failed valve may influence long-term mortality, and the type of the transcatheter valve may influence the need for reintervention after aortic ViV.

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: Percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions was associated with worse outcomes in the era of bare‐metal and first‐generation drug‐eluting stents. Data on percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents are scarce. Therefore, we investigated the impact of lesion calcification on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent or a durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent. Methods and Results: Patients (n=2361) from BIOFLOW II, IV, and V trials were categorized into moderate/severe versus none/mild lesion calcification by a core laboratory. End points were target‐lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐lesion revascularization) and probable/definite stent thrombosis at 2 years. The agreement in calcification assessment between the operator and the core laboratory was weak (weighted κ, 0.23). Patients with moderate/severe calcification (n=303; 16%) had higher TLF (13.5% versus 8.4%; P =0.003) and stent thrombosis rates (2.1% versus 0.2%; P <0.0001), whereas target‐lesion revascularization was not different between the groups (5.0% versus 3.9%; P =0.302). After adjustment, calcification did not emerge as an independent predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.37; 95% CI, 0.89–2.08; P =0.148) but did for target‐vessel myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.03–2.68; P =0.037). TLF rates were similar between bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent (12.6% versus 15.4%, P =0.482) in moderate/severe calcification. In none/mild calcification, the bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent showed lower TLF (7.5% versus 10.3%, P =0.045). Conclusions: With newer‐generation drug‐eluting stents, moderate/severe lesion calcification was not associated with more TLF after adjustment for the higher risk of patients with coronary calcification, whereas the rate of target‐vessel myocardial infarction was higher. The bioresorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent and durable‐polymer everolimus‐eluting stent were equally effective and safe in calcified lesions. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifiers: NCT01356888, NCT01939249, NCT02389946.

Background: Percutaneous intervention of calcified coronary lesions often requires lesion preparation with either balloon dilatation or atherectomy. We sought to evaluate the impact of lesion preparation strategy on stent expansion following preparation of severely calcified coronary lesions with modified (cutting/scoring) balloons (MB) versus rotational atherectomy (RA) and to evaluate the impact of calcium burden as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) on acute stent performance. Methods: In the PREPARE-CALC trial (Comparison of Strategies to Prepare Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions), 200 patients with severely calcified coronary lesions were randomly assigned to receive either lesion preparation with MB or RA. In 122 patients, OCT was performed before lesion preparation and at the end of the procedure. The principal end point of this OCT sub-analysis was stent expansion as assessed by OCT. The key secondary end points included stent asymmetry and eccentricity. Results: The maximal calcific arc (257.5±96.7° versus 248.7±82.1°, P =0.59), thickness (1.34±0.29 versus 1.32±0.27 mm, P =0.76), and length of calcification (21.1±9.7 versus 24.0±10.9 mm, P =0.12) did not differ between the MB versus RA group. Lesion preparation with MB versus RA lead to comparable stent expansion (73.5±13.3% versus 73.1±12.2%, respectively, P =0.85). The use of RA did not have a significant impact on stent asymmetry or eccentricity compared with the use of MB. Length of calcified plaque appeared to be increased in patients with stent underexpansion, while thickness of calcified plaque was increased in patients with stent asymmetry. Target lesion revascularization at 9 months was 3.3% when MB was used and 1.6% when RA was performed ( P =0.62). Conclusions: In this OCT sub-analysis from the PREPARE-CALC trial, calcified plaque length was increased in patients with stent underexpansion, while its thickness was higher in patients with stent asymmetry, with no impact of the lesion preparation strategy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02502851.