Background: There is little evidence about the prognostic role of mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with low‐flow, low‐gradient aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and outcome implications of MR severity in patients with low‐flow, low‐gradient aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR, and to evaluate whether MR improvement after TAVR could influence clinical outcome. Methods and Results: This study included consecutive patients with low‐flow, low‐gradient aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR at 2 Italian high‐volume centers. The study population was categorized according to the baseline MR severity and to the presence of MR improvement at discharge. The primary outcome was the composite of all‐cause death and hospitalization for worsening heart failure up to 1 year. The study included 268 patients; 57 (21%) patients showed MR >2+. Patients with MR >2+ showed a lower 1‐year survival free from the primary outcome ( P <0.001), all‐cause death ( P <0.001), and heart failure hospitalization ( P 2+ was an independent predictor of the primary outcome ( P 2+, MR improvement was reported in 24 (44%) cases after TAVR. The persistence of MR was associated with a significantly reduced survival free from the primary outcome, all‐cause death, and heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Conclusions: In this study, the presence of moderately severe to severe MR in patients with low‐flow, low‐gradient aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR portends a worse clinical outcome at 1 year. TAVR may improve MR severity in nearly half of the patients, resulting in a potential outcome benefit after discharge.

Expanding indications to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) warrant meticolous vascular management and minimization of access site complications. Two leading vascular closure devices (VCD) are currently used for TAVI, ProGlide vs. Prostar, but their comparative effectiveness and safety are debated. We aimed at comparing acute and 1-month outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI using as VCD either ProGlide (Perclose) or Prostar (XL). The prospective RISPEVA database was queried for baseline, procedural, and outcome details of patients undergoing TAVI and in whom either ProGlide or Prostar had been used as VCD. Outcomes of interest were death, vascular complication, and bleeding, distinguishing specific subtypes. Outcomes were adjudicated according to current Valve Academic Research Consortium definitions. A total of 1987 subjects were included, 913 (46.0%) receiving ProGlide, and 1074 receiving Prostar (54.0%). Several baseline and procedural differences were evident, including surgical risk, concomitant coronary artery disease, sheath size, use of predilation, and chosen TAVI device (all P<0.05). Periprocedurally, despite similar rates of device success (P=0.262), Prostar was associated with a lower risk of vascular stenosis (P=0.005), but a higher rate of device malfunction (P=0.028). Unadjusted analysis for 1-month outcomes suggested higher rates of major adverse events, any bleeding, major bleeding, and renal failure in patients receiving Prostar (all P<0.05). However, propensity score-adjusted analysis did not confirm any significant differences, suggesting that confounding factors mostly drove unadjusted differences. Use of ProGlide and Prostar as VCD of choice for TAVI appears similarly safe and effective, despite some potential benefits associated with ProGlide. Further randomized trials are warranted to confirm or disprove these findings.

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair has a favorable risk–benefit profile in patients with significant de novo mitral regurgitation. Its role in patients with prior mitral valve repair is uncertain. We aimed to appraise the outcome of patients undergoing transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair (TEER) with prior transcatheter or surgical mitral valve repair (SMVR). Methods and Results: We queried the Italian multicenter registry on TEER with MitraClip, distinguishing naïve patients from those with prior TEER or (SMVR). Inhospital and long‐term clinical/echocardiographic outcomes were appraised. The primary outcome was the occurrence of death or rehospitalization for heart failure. A total of 2238 patients were included, with 2169 (96.9%) who were naïve to any mitral intervention, 29 (1.3%) with prior TEER, and 40 (1.8%) with prior SMVR. Several significant differences were found in baseline clinical and imaging features. Respectively, device success was obtained in 2120 (97.7%), 28 (96.6%), and 38 (95.0%, P =0.261) patients; procedural success in 2080 (95.9%), 25 (86.2%), and 38 (95.0%; P =0.047); and inhospital death in 61 (2.8%), 1 (3.5%), and no ( P =0.558) patients. Clinical follow‐up after a mean of 14 months showed similar rates of death, cardiac death, rehospitalization, rehospitalization for heart failure, and their composite (all P >0.05). Propensity score–adjusted analysis confirmed unadjusted analysis, with lower procedural success for the prior TEER group (odds ratio, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.09–0.81]; P =0.019) but similar odds ratios and hazard ratios for all other outcomes in the naïve, TEER, and SMVR groups (all P >0.05). Conclusions: In carefully selected patients, TEER can be performed using the MitraClip device even after prior TEER or SMVR.

Background: Whether the presence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction may influence the clinical outcome of patients with low‐flow, low‐gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG‐AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not yet been established. Methods and Results: This study included consecutive patients with LFLG‐AS undergoing TAVR at 2 high‐volume Italian centers. RV dysfunction before TAVR procedure was defined as tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion assessed by transthoracic echocardiography lower than <17 mm. The primary outcome was all‐cause death at 1 year. The propensity score weighting technique was implemented to account for potential selection bias between patients with and without RV dysfunction. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the consistency of the results in patients with classical and paradoxical LFLG‐AS forms. This study included 392 patients; of them, 97 (24.7%) patients showed RV dysfunction before TAVR. At propensity score–weighted adjusted Cox regression analysis, RV dysfunction, according to dichotomous definition, was associated with an increased risk for the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.11 [95% CI, 1.58–6.13]), cardiovascular death (adjusted HR, 3.26 [95% CI, 1.58–6.72]), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted HR, 3.39 [95% CI, 1.76–6.53]). Conversely, no difference was detected for the risk of stroke and of permanent pacemaker implantation. No significant interaction of the classical and paradoxical LFLG‐AS subgroups was detected for all the outcomes of interest. Conclusions: This study suggests that RV dysfunction echocardiographically assessed by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion may improve the prognostic stratification of patients with LFLG‐AS undergoing TAVR.

Article: Transcatheter management of combined mitral and aortic disease: dynamic duo or double trouble? - Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 April;69(2):117-21 - Minerva Medica - Journals