Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the preferred treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) in a majority of patients across all surgical risks. Patients and methods: Paravalvular leak (PVL) and patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) are two frequent complications of TAVI. Therefore, based on the large France-TAVI registry, we planned to report the incidence of both complications following TAVI, evaluate their respective risk factors, and study their respective impacts on long-term clinical outcomes, including mortality. Results: We identified 47,494 patients in the database who underwent a TAVI in France between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Within this population, 17,742 patients had information regarding PPM status (5138 with moderate-to-severe PPM, 29.0%) and 20,878 had information regarding PVL (4056 with PVL ≥ 2, 19.4%). After adjustment, the risk factors for PVL ≥ 2 were a lower body mass index (BMI), a high baseline mean aortic gradient, a higher body surface area, a lower ejection fraction, a smaller diameter of TAVI, and a self-expandable TAVI device, while for moderate-to-severe PPM we identified a younger age, a lower BMI, a larger body surface area, a low aortic annulus area, a low ejection fraction, and a smaller diameter TAVI device (OR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83–0.86) as predictors. At 6.5 years, PVL ≥ 2 was an independent predictor of mortality and was associated with higher mortality risk. PPM was not associated with increased risk of mortality. Conclusions: Our analysis from the France-TAVI registry showed that both moderate-to-severe PPM and PVL ≥ 2 continue to be frequently observed after the TAVI procedure. Different risk factors, mostly related to the patient’s anatomy and TAVI device selection, for both complications have been identified. Only PVL ≥ 2 was associated with higher mortality during follow-up.

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. 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. 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. clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04160130.

Background: Both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are broadly used in clinical practice. However, adequately powered randomized controlled trials comparing these two valve designs are lacking. Methods: The CENTER-study included 12,381 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. Patients undergoing TAVI with a BE-valve (n = 4096) were compared to patients undergoing TAVI with an SE-valve (n = 4096) after propensity score matching. Clinical outcomes including one-year mortality and stroke rates were assessed. Results: In the matched population of n = 5410 patients, the mean age was 81 ± 3 years, 60% was female, and the STS-PROM predicted 30-day mortality was 6.2% (IQR 4.0–12.4). One-year mortality was not different between patients treated with BE- or SE-valves (BE: 16.4% vs. SE: 17.0%, Relative Risk 1.04, 95%CI 0.02–1.21, p = 0.57). One-year stroke rates were also comparable (BE: 4.9% vs. SE: 5.3%, RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.86–1.37, p = 0.48). Conclusion: This study suggests that one-year mortality and stroke rates were comparable in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis undergoing TAVI with either BE or SE-valves.

Aims: To investigate the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without preliminary balloon aortic valvuloplasty (pre-BAV) on periprocedural outcomes in a large, real-world registry. Methods and results: The SOURCE 3 registry was an observational, multi-center, single-arm study of patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at high surgical risk treated with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve (THV). Procedural and 30-day outcomes were compared between two groups of 772 patients each (retrospectively matched) with or without pre-BAV. All baseline clinical, echocardiographic, and anatomical valve characteristics were comparable between groups except for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, which was lower in the direct TAVR group (6.0 +/- 5.9 vs 7.8 +/- 8.3; p = 0.003). In the direct TAVR group, there were less post-dilatations (8.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.002), shorter procedural time (70.9 +/- 39.8 min vs 73.0 +/- 32.2 min, p = 0.033) and fluoroscopy time (13.4 +/- 7.0 min vs 14.9 +/- 7.4 min, p < 0.001). Other procedural outcomes and echocardiographic variables at 30 days did not differ significantly between the two groups: safety endpoint (10.4% with pre-BAV vs 13.5% with direct TAVR, p = 0.059), mortality (2.1% vs 2.3%, p = 0.730), disabling strokes (0.4% vs 0.5%, p = 0.704), and moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) (3.2% vs 2.2%, p = 0.40). Unexpectedly, new permanent pacemaker implantation and life-threatening bleeds were less frequently observed with pre-BAV group than with direct TAVR (10.4% vs 13.9%, p = 0.032 and 3.5% vs 6.5%, p = 0.007, respectively). Conclusion: In this large TAVR dataset, direct implantation of the SAPIEN 3 THV without pre-BAV was feasible and safe and resulted in shorter procedures, without impact on 30-day prosthesis function and PVL. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital heart disease, with a prevalence of 1–2% and occurring in >20% of octogenarians referred for aortic valve replacement. However, BAV patients have been systematically excluded from pivotal randomized trials. Since TAVI indications are moving toward low-risk patients, an increase in the number of BAV patients who undergo TAVI is expected. BAV represents a challenge due to its unique morphological features (raphe, extreme asymmetrical valve calcifications, cusp asymmetry and aortopathy) and the lack of consensus about the accurate sizing method. The role of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the planification of the TAVI procedure is well-established, being useful to define the optimal valve sizing and the implantation strategy. New-generation devices, more experience of the operators and better planification of the procedure have been associated with similar clinical outcomes in bicuspid and tricuspid patients undergoing TAVI.

Over the past few years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) imposed itself as the first-choice therapy for symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in elderly patients at surgical risk. There have been continuous technological advancements in the latest iterations of TAVI devices and implantation techniques, which have bolstered their adoption. Moreover, the favorable outcomes coming out from clinical trials represent an indisputable point of strength for TAVI. As indications for transcatheter therapies now include a low surgical risk and younger individuals, new challenges are emerging. In this context, the matter of prosthesis durability is noteworthy. Initial evidence is beginning to emerge from the studies in the field, but they are still limited and compromised by multiple biases. Additionally, the physiopathological mechanisms behind the valve’s deterioration are nowadays somewhat clearer and classified. So, who outlasts who—the valve or the patient? This review aims to explore the available evidence surrounding this intriguing question, examining the various factors affecting prosthesis durability and discussing its potential implications for clinical management and current interventional practice.