Infective endocarditis is a rare but severe complication that may arise following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Recent advances in microbiological epidemiology have highlighted staphylococci and enterococci as the primary pathogens involved.

To investigate the prevalence of these bacteria in patients' cutaneous flora before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures, and to assess the implications for antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations.

A single-centre prospective epidemiological study was conducted, enrolling patients admitted consecutively for transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures between June 2021 and February 2022. Cutaneous samples were obtained from each patient at the puncture site of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedure, before and after skin detersion, and from operator hands after skin detersion.

One hundred patients were included, with a mean age of 82±6.1years, a male-to-female ratio of 0.48 and a mean body mass index of 29±4.4kg/m2. Before skin detersion, cutaneous samples were positive in 58 patients; among them were coagulase-negative staphylococci (n=48, 82%, 95% confidence interval 71-91%), enterococci (n=12, 21%, 95% confidence interval: 11-33%), Staphylococcus aureus (n=2, 3%, 95% confidence interval 0-12%) and Enterobacteriaceae (n=4, 7%, 95% confidence interval: 2-17%).

Enterococci are frequently present in patients' cutaneous flora at the puncture site before skin detersion, suggesting a potential source for infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. These findings support considering amoxicillin-clavulanate as antibiotic prophylaxis before transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures to mitigate the risk of infective endocarditis associated with enterococcal colonization.

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve Replacement (TAVR) has become the standard therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis in patients over 75 years old in Europe or 65 years old in the United States, regardless of the surgical risk. Furthermore, iterations of existing transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs), as well as devices with novel concepts, have provided substantial improvements with respect to the limitations of previous-generation devices. Hence, treatment of a broader spectrum of patients has become feasible, and a sophisticated selection of the appropriate TAV tailored to patients' anatomy and comorbidities is now possible. Anatomy, patient characteristics, and operator experience must all inform proper device selection. This review describes the features and performance of the current generation of TAVs with the aim of providing a practical approach for clinicians when selecting the appropriate TAV for a specific patient.

The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis is expanding to patients across the entire spectrum of surgical risk. We performed a meta-analysis and compared TAVI with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in trials that enrolled lower-risk patients.

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and compared safety and efficacy outcomes between TAVI and SAVR among lower-risk patients (mean and/or median Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] score < 4). Point-estimate meta-analysis and reconstructed individual patient data survival analysis were conducted. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, and a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (PROSPERO, CRD42024541837).

The analysis included 6 randomized controlled trials, totaling 2668 TAVI and 2573 SAVR patients, with a mean follow-up time of 3.02 years. TAVI was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.88) and a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.86) without a significant difference in stroke up to 2 years. Longer-term point-estimate analysis showed no difference. In reconstructed individual patient data, TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, driven by an early advantage. Restricted mean survival time differences for primary outcomes were < 2.5 months and ≤ 1 month for all-cause mortality. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of bleeding, kidney injury, and atrial fibrillation, but a higher risk of pacemaker implantation and moderate to severe aortic regurgitation.

In patients at lower surgical risk, TAVI was associated with improved short-term mortality. More data from long-term studies are needed.

Previous reports of longer-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) focus on higher risk patients and suggest potential temporal changes.

To evaluate the longer-term and temporal performances of TAVI compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes with at least 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or disabling stroke.

We included 8 trials with 8,749 patients. TAVI was associated with a higher risk of longer-term (5-year) primary outcome compared to SAVR among higher-risk [odds ratio (OR), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.47] but not lower-risk participants [1.0 (0.77-1.29)]. However, a significant temporal interaction was detected in both risk profiles. TAVI with balloon-expandable valves was associated with a higher risk of longer-term primary outcome compared to SAVR [1.38 (1.2-1.6)], whereas no statistical difference was found with self-expanding valves [1.03 (0.89-1.19)]. There was a significant interaction between the two valve systems, and a temporal interaction was detected in both systems. Overall landmark analysis revealed a lower risk in TAVI within the initial 30 days [0.76 (0.6, 0.96)], comparable between 30 days to 2 years [1.04 (0.85, 1.28)], and higher beyond 2 years [1.36 (1.15-1.61)]. Analysis for all-cause death generated largely similar results.

TAVI was associated with a higher longer-term risk of primary outcome compared to SAVR in higher-risk patients and with balloon-expandable valves. However, a characteristic temporal interaction was documented in all subgroups. Future studies are warranted to test these findings.

The American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and obesity) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, glucose control, and metabolic syndrome) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The AHA Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, brain health, complications of pregnancy, kidney disease, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, sudden cardiac arrest, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, valvular disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs).

The AHA, through its Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States and globally to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update with review of published literature through the year before writing. The 2025 AHA Statistical Update is the product of a full year's worth of effort in 2024 by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and AHA staff members. This year's edition includes a continued focus on health equity across several key domains and enhanced global data that reflect improved methods and incorporation of ≈3000 new data sources since last year's Statistical Update.

Each of the chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics.

The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policymakers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.

The indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is becoming more prevalent among younger and lower-risk patients. However, data on the latest intra-annular TAVR devices are limited. This study aims to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of two intra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices in Japan: SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA (S3UR) and Navitor.

Of the 286 patients who underwent TAVR between May 2022 and October 2023 at our center, we enrolled 97 consecutive patients who received either S3UR or Navitor. We compared the intraprocedural invasive and echocardiographic hemodynamic assessment and post-procedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

The basic characteristics of the 97 patients (median age, 86 years [interquartile range, 81-89 years]) were similar. Technical success, defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium, was achieved in all cases. Despite a smaller annulus, Navitor demonstrated decreased mean pressure gradient by TTE, 9.2 [7.3-13.6] mmHg versus 7.5 [5.9-9.5] mmHg, p = 0.006; but not by invasive measurement 5.1 [3.4-7.7] mmHg versus 5.3 [3.2-7.9] mmHg, p = 0.986). Discordance between echocardiographic and invasive assessment was more prominent with S3UR. However, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was similarly noted between the two devices. Mild paravalvular leak (PVL) (24.5% vs. 54.5%, p = 0.002) was more frequent with the Navitor, despite no moderate-severe PVL in each group. The incidence of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) detected by MDCT was similar between the two groups.

Both intra-annular valves demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance with minimal PVL after TAVR. The incidence of HALT in both devices was comparable.

The "weekend effect" on hospital admissions has been extensively studied, showing increased risks for patients admitted on weekends than those admitted on weekdays. We aimed to assess the "weekend effect" on in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

A nationwide cohort study was conducted using the National Inpatient Sample Database. We identified 82,094 eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted for TAVR between 2013 and 2021. Patients were grouped into weekend or weekday cohorts based on day of admission. Propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariate regression models were employed to evaluate outcomes. After PSM, 2,688 weekend admissions and 13,440 weekday admissions were included in the analyses.

Multivariable regression, adjusted for propensity score, revealed that weekend admission was associated with 45% higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.85). Significant heterogeneity in mortality was observed based on admission urgency, with a 3.27 times higher increased risk of death observed for elective admissions on weekends than on weekdays (P for interaction = 0.001). Moreover, weekend admissions had significantly higher adjusted odds for cardiogenic shock, permanent pacemaker implantation, endocarditis, acute kidney injury, acute ischemic stroke, and blood transfusion. There was a trend of higher in-hospital mortality for weekend over weekday admissions throughout the study period.

Weekend admissions for TAVR had higher mortality, complications, and resource utilization, particularly in elective cases. Our findings suggest that patients admitted for TAVR during weekends are at high risk and warrant special attention.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an optimal alternative in selected groups of patients and evolved from procedures in non-option patients to lower-risk-profile patients. One of its main indications is previous cardiac surgery, since redo-intervention is burdened with a higher risk of complications. However, TAVI after mitral valve surgery may raise concerns due to potential interference with the mitral prosthesis or ring during or after the procedure. The present paper reviews the current knowledge, including possible complications and procedural aspects.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive procedure used to replace a damaged aortic valve with a prosthetic valve. TAVR has exceeded surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) due to shorter procedures and recovery times. Though initially approved for patients with aortic stenosis at a high surgical risk, TAVR's indications have now broadened to include high, intermediate, and low-risk patients. This review focuses on the evolving role of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We examine the anatomical and hemodynamic differences between tricuspid aortic valve and BAV, highlighting the unique challenges TAVR faces in BAV patients.

There was a scarcity of data evaluating variations in treatment approaches and clinical outcomes for severe aortic stenosis (AS) between medical centers with and without availability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Current study population was 2993 patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 (2581 patients from 10 TAVI centers; 412 patients from 10 non-TAVI centers). TAVI centers more frequently opted for the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (60% and 40%, P < 0.001). Among patients with the initial AVR strategy, TAVI centers disproportionately favored the initial TAVI strategy compared to non-TAVI centers (71% and 23%, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the risk of a composite of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers in the entire study population (cumulative 3-year incidence: 32.0% and 31.0%, P = 0.37; adjusted hazard ratios: 0.92, 95% confidence intervals: 0.74-1.15, P = 0.45) or in conservative, initial AVR, initial surgical AVR, and initial TAVI strata. A substantial disparity exists in the treatment strategies for patients with severe AS between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. TAVI centers tended to perform AVR, particularly TAVI, earlier and more frequently. However, there was no discernible distinction in the risk of the composite of all-cause death or HF hospitalization between TAVI and non-TAVI centers. UMINID: UMIN000034169.

Multiphase computed tomography angiography (mpCTA) is routinely performed prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine eligibility and enable preprocedural planning. Incremental prognostic value may be realized from full-cycle, multiphase reconstructions to assess the contractile health of the cardiac chambers. In this study we assessed the feasibility of 4-dimensional chamber modelling of the left ventricle (LV) to support 3-dimensional minimum principal strain (3DminPS)-based predictions of clinical outcomes after TAVR.

Two hundred five patients undergoing pre-TAVR mpCTA were studied. UNet-based 3D chamber segmentation was followed by mesh modelling and 3D feature tracking-based deformation to determine global 3DminPS for endocardial, epicardial, and transmural layers. Independent associations of 3DminPS with the primary outcome of heart failure hospitalization or death are described.

Of the 205 patients studied, 196 (96%) had analyzable mpCTAs (median age, 85 years; 55% male; Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score = 3.10; 60.0% echocardiographic LV ejection fraction). At a median of 25 months after TAVR, 55 patients (28%) experienced the primary outcome. After adjustment for baseline variables, patients with an endocardial 3DminPS amplitude worse than -23.7% experienced a 2.7-fold higher risk of the outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.1; P = 0.001), with this high-risk cohort having 1- and 3-year event rates of 32% and 49%, respectively.

Four-dimensional chamber modelling of mpCTA using UNet-based segmentation and standardized mesh deformation is feasible and enables delivery of 3D deformation markers with strong prognostic value for the prediction of outcomes after TAVR. Prospective validation in a multicentre setting is currently being undertaken.

Heart failure (HF) and aortic stenosis (AS) frequently coexist, presenting a complex clinical challenge due to their intertwined pathophysiology and associated high morbidity and mortality. Despite numerous advancements in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), HF decompensation remains the leading cause of cardiac rehospitalization and a major predictor of mortality in patients with AS, before or after AVR. This review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between AS and HF, delving into myocardial changes caused by stenotic insult, the impact of AVR on these changes, and the prevalence and contributing elements of HF before and after AVR.

The prevalence of HF remains high before and after AVR, particularly among patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Increased afterload from AS causes cardiac remodeling, which is initially benign but over time these changes become maladaptive, contributing to HF and increased mortality. The progression of HF is influenced by the degree of reverse cardiac remodeling, which can be affected by comorbid conditions, the hemodynamic performance of the valve prosthesis, and vascular stiffness. Several blood and imaging biomarkers offer insights into underlying AS pathophysiology, serving as mortality predictors and predicting HF in this patient population.

HF development in AS is multifactorial and its link to left ventricular dysfunction is a complex process. Delineating the determinants of HF admissions in AS is crucial for identifying individuals at high risk. Identifying the early signs of left ventricular decompensation by using surrogate markers may be the key, even before left ventricular function becomes impaired. Translating multimodality imaging techniques and biomarkers into routine clinical practice for evaluating cardiac damage and integrating these markers with patient and procedural factors that affect HF before and after AVR can facilitate timely intervention, minimizing the likelihood of HF progression and influencing future guidelines.

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the commonly used approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to SAVR for AVR. This meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients by analyzing temporal trends in the outcomes of TAVR and SAVR at various follow-up intervals, providing a more detailed understanding.

A thorough literature search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up to May 2024 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

A total of 17 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials were included (n=9092). No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing all-cause death at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years but significantly increased risk with TAVR at 5 years or longer follow-up (RR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.23). However, TAVR was associated with a significantly decreased risk for cardiac death at 1-year follow-up (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) and comparable risk for cardiac death at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up when compared with SAVR. No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up.TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.67); lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.26-0.54) and 1 year (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82) and lower risk of new onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (AF) at 30 days (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.18-0.34), 1 year (RR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.16-0.41) and 2 years (RR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.20-0.49) when compared with SAVR. However, TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30 days (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.40-4.91), at 1 year (RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.24-3.87), at 2 years (RR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.31-5.71), and beyond 5 years (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.20-3.15). TAVR was also associated with a significantly increased risk of prosthetic valve thrombosis at 2 years (RR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.08-6.71), though no significant association was observed at 30 days, 1 year, or 5 years. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in aortic-valve reintervention rates at 30 days, 2 years, or 5 years, but TAVR showed a significantly increased risk at 1 year (RR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21-3.24). TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of major vascular complications at 30 days (RR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.38-4.04) and a significantly increased risk of TIA at 2 years (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02-2.00, I2=0%). The risk of hospitalizations was comparable between the groups.

TAVR and SAVR demonstrated comparable rates of all-cause death up to 2 years of follow-up. However, at 5 years or longer follow-up, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death. While TAVR showed certain procedural advantages, such as a lower risk of major bleeding, AKI, and new-onset or worsening AF, the choice between TAVR and SAVR in patients with low or intermediate surgical risk should consider long-term outcomes, with SAVR potentially being more favorable due to better survival observed on longer follow-up durations.

Limited data exist on long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This meta-analysis aims to elucidate outcome trends following TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and low-surgical risk.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until May 2024, to identify studies comparing TAVR versus SAVR in patients with low-surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score <4%). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, aortic valve reintervention, permanent pacemaker implantation, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Binary random-effects models were used to compare the risk of each outcome across various follow-up intervals and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias-2 tool. The meta-analysis included 6 randomized trials including 4682 patients. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than SAVR in the 30-day (hazard ratio [HR: 0.45] [95% CI: 0.26-0.77], I2: 0%) and 30-day to 1-year (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.37-0.81], I2: 16%) follow-ups. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar during >1-year follow-ups. TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation compared with SAVR during the 30-day follow-up.

TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality within the first year of post-procedural follow-up compared with SAVR. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar in >1-year follow-ups.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the gold standard treatment for aortic stenosis in the elderly. Pre-identification of patients likely to benefit from this procedure remains crucial. A standardised geriatric assessment is used to identify the major geriatric syndromes likely to influence postoperative outcomes.

To identify factors associated with lack of TAVI management and to compare one-year survival in TAVI vs. non-TAVI patients.

Retrospective study, between 2016 and 2020, at the Arras hospital. Patients aged 70 years and older with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who had undergone geriatric assessment were included.

One hundred and ninety-two (192) patients, mean age 82.3 years. The 1-year mortality rate was 18% in the TAVI group and 44% in the non-TAVI group (p < 0.001). Parameters associated with no TAVI were Euroscore (ESL) 1 (19.6 ± 10.9 vs. 23.2 ± 13.5, p = 0.020), malnutrition (14% vs. 35%, p = 0.004), walking speed < 0.8 m/s (39% vs. 75%, p = 0.001), Activities of Daily Life (ADL) score (5.4 ± 1 vs. 4.2 ± 1. 6, p < 0. 001) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Life (IADL) score (2.6 ± 1.2 vs. 1.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.002), Mini Geriatric Depression Scale (mini GDS) ≥ 1 (16% vs. 38%, p = 0.045), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (25.1 ± 3.5 vs. 21.6 ± 4.3 < 0.001).

Geriatric syndromes are important determinants of TAVI candidacy. Cardiological surgical risk scores are not effective in discriminating between patients. Coordinated assessment may optimise selection. Therefore, geriatric assessment should be systematically performed as part of the pre-TAVI evaluation.

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.

Vascular complications after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain an important cause of procedure-related morbidity. Routine reversal of anticoagulation with protamine at the conclusion of transfemoral TAVI could reduce complications, but data remain scarce.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of routine protamine administration after transfemoral TAVI.

The ACE-PROTAVI trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial performed at 3 Australian hospitals between December 2021 and June 2023 with a 1-year follow-up period. All patients accepted for transfemoral TAVI by a multidisciplinary heart team were eligible for enrollment.

Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 between routine protamine administration and placebo.

The coprimary outcomes were the rate of hemostasis success and time to hemostasis (TTH), presented as categorical variables and compared with a χ2 test or as continuous variables as mean (SD) or median (IQR), depending on distribution. The major secondary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, major and minor bleeding complications, and major and minor vascular complications after 30 days, reported in odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and P values.

The study population consisted of 410 patients: 199 patients in the protamine group and 211 in the placebo group. The median (IQR) patient age in the protamine group was 82 (77-85) years, and 68 of 199 patients receiving protamine (34.2%) were female. The median (IQR) patient age in the placebo group was 80 (75-85) years, and 89 of 211 patients receiving the placebo (42.2%) were female. Patients receiving up-front protamine administration had a higher rate of hemostasis success (188 of 192 patients [97.9%]) than patients in the placebo group (186 of 203 patients [91.6%]; absolute risk difference, 6.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-10.6%; P = .006); in addition, patients receiving up-front protamine had a shorter median (IQR) TTH (181 [120-420] seconds vs 279 [122-600] seconds; P = .002). Routine protamine administration resulted in a reduced risk of the composite outcome in the protamine group (10 of 192 [5.2%]) vs the placebo group (26 of 203 [12.8%]; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01). This difference was predominantly driven by the difference in the prevalence of minor vascular complications. There were no adverse events associated with protamine use.

In the ACE-PROTAVI randomized clinical trial, routine administration of protamine increased the rate of hemostasis success and decreased TTH. The beneficial effect of protamine was reflected in a reduction in minor vascular complications, procedural time, and postprocedural hospital stay duration in patients receiving routine protamine compared with patients receiving placebo.

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12621001261808.

For Aortic valve replacement (AVR), both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) serve as a pivotal therapeutic approach for severe aortic stenosis (AS). While both modalities show advantages over conservative management, the long-term mortality benefits post AVR, especially when comparing TAVR with SAVR, remain uncertain. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted through a systematic search of electronic databases up to December 7, 2023. Individual patient data extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots underwent pooling and modeling with stratification by surgical risk. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at five years. The study included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 non-RCTs, encompassing 4,215 patients undergoing TAVR, 4,017 undergoing SAVR, and comparing 11,285 AVR patients with 23,358 receiving conservative management. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement exhibited significantly lower all-cause mortality at six months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52-0.74) compared to SAVR, with no significant difference beyond 6 months (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83-1.16), stroke (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.75-1.38), or valvular hemodynamics between TAVR and SAVR. Aortic valve replacement markedly reduced all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy (P < 0.001), with five-year crude mortality rates of 31.6% versus 49.3% and a difference in restricted mean survival time of 8.9 months. Similar outcomes were observed across high, intermediate, and low surgical risk categories. While TAVR demonstrated early mortality reduction compared to SAVR, no distinctions emerged in the overall five-year follow-up, regardless of surgical risk. Aortic valve replacement notably improved survival over conservative therapy. This study advocates for the preference of TAVR or SAVR in severe AS patients when feasible.

Aortic stenosis remains the most frequently occurring valvular pathology in the elderly population of Western countries. According to the latest guidelines, the therapeutic choice of aortic stenosis depends on the age of the patient (<75 years or >75 years) and the risk class (STS-Prom/Euroscore II < o >4%). Therefore, if the surgical indication is clear in young and low-risk patients and percutaneous treatment is the gold standard in older and high-risk patients, the therapeutic choice is still debated in intermediate-risk patients. In this group of patients, aortic valve stenosis treatment depends on the patient's global evaluation, the experience of the center, and, no less importantly, the patient's will. Two main therapeutic options are debated: surgical aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. In addition, the progressive development of mininvasive techniques for aortic valve surgery (right-anterior minithoracotomy) has also reduced the peri- and post-operative risk in this group of patients. The purpose of this review is to compare sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has undergone rapid expansion, emerging as a viable therapeutic option for low-risk patients in lieu of surgical aortic valve replacement. This paper aims to provide a review of the scientific evidence concerning TAVR in low-risk patients, encompassing both observational and clinical trial data. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of low-risk patients possesses a bicuspid aortic valve, necessitating careful examination of the pertinent anatomic and clinical considerations to TAVR that is highlighted in this review. Additionally, the review expands upon some of the unique challenges associated with alternate access in low-risk patients evaluated for TAVR. Last, this review outlines the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary heart team approach in the execution of all TAVR procedures and the authors' vision of 'minimalist TAVR' as a new era in low-risk TAVR.

East Asians have smaller aortic valve complexes than individuals from Western countries, and few studies have reported transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes in Asian patients with a large annulus.

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of TAVI using balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expandable valves (SEVs) in Asian patients with a large annulus.

The study retrospectively analyzed the data from the OCEAN-TAVI (Optimized Transcatheter Valvular Intervention Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry. A large annulus was defined by an annular area ≥500 mm2 and an average diameter ≥25 mm as measured by computed tomography. The primary endpoint was 3-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were 3-year heart failure rehospitalization (HFR) after TAVI, short-term outcomes of TAVI, and changes in valve function 2 years after TAVI.

Among 773 patients, 671 underwent BEV TAVI. The SEV TAVI group showed a significantly higher incidence of greater than moderate paravalvular leakage (PVL) (P < 0.001), and an increased pacemaker implantation rate (P = 0.035). The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch did not differ between the 2 groups. The Kaplan-Meier curve showed no significant differences in 3-year all-cause mortality and HFR rates (log-rank P = 0.900), and echocardiographic valve function at 2 years post-TAVI did not differ between the 2 groups.

The lack of differences in postoperative valve performance and long-term prognosis between BEV TAVI and SEV TAVI highlights the importance of selecting valves that can reduce the pacemaker implantation rate and PVL grade in the acute phase in patients with a large annulus. (Optimized Transcatheter Valvular Intervention Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation [OCEAN-TAVI]; UMIN000020423).

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, although phase-specific survival and cause of death are implicated following these procedures. Herein, we conducted a phase-specific meta-analysis to compare outcomes after TAVR versus SAVR.

A systematic search of databases was performed from inception through December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. For each trial, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of outcomes of interest was extracted for the following each specific phase: the very short-term (0-1 years after the procedure), short-term (1-2 years), and mid-term (2-5 years). Phase-specific HRs were separately pooled using the random-effects model.

Our analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials, which enrolled a total of 8885 patients with a mean age of 79 years. The survival after TAVR compared with SAVR was greater in the very short-term periods (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .02) but similar in the short-term periods. In contrast, lower survival was observed in the TAVR group compared with the SAVR group in the mid-term periods (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .02). Similar temporal trends favoring SAVR in the mid-term were present for cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization rates. In contrast, the rates of aortic valve reinterventions and permanent pacemaker implantations were initially greater in the TAVR group, although SAVR's superiority eventually disappeared in the mid-term.

Our analysis demonstrated phase-specific outcomes following TAVR and SAVR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being currently employed in low surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The durability and extended outcomes of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients remains uncertain.

We selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in low surgical risk patients having severe AS using online databases. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were composite of all-cause death & disabling stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement, new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), valve re-intervention and valve thrombosis. The outcomes were stratified at short- (1-year) and intermediate-term (≤5 years) follow-up. We used a random effect model to report outcomes as relative risk (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI).

The analysis consisted of six RCTs comprising 5,122 subjects with a mean age of 75.4 years. At short-term follow up, there was a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR: 0.62, 0.46-0.82, p = 0.001) and composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke (RR: 0.62, 0.45-0.83, p = 0.002) in patients undergoing TAVR. At intermediate-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival (RR:0.95, 0.73-1.24, p = 0.71) and composite outcome (RR: 0.95, 0.74-1.22, p = 0.71). TAVR patients had lower incidence of new onset AF, however, higher PPM placement.

In patients with severe AS having low-surgical risk, patients undergoing TAVR had improved short-term survival as compared to SAVR. This survival advantage was absent at intermediate-term follow-up. The long-term outcomes remain uncertain.

With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, the role of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in elderly patients has been called into question. We investigated the short-term outcomes of SAVR in the elderly population.

All patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent isolated SAVR in our centre between 2008 and 2017 were included in the study. Survival at 30 days and 1 year were compared for patients aged 70-79 years (n = 809) versus patients aged ≥ 80 years (n = 322). Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes were identified using multivariable Cox regression analysis.

Patients aged 70-79 years and patients aged ≥ 80 years had similar survival rates at 30 days (98.1% vs. 98.4%, p = 0.732) and 1 year (96.0% vs. 94.1%, p = 0.162) post-SAVR. This remained true after multivariable adjustment. Risk factors for 30 day all-cause mortality included insulin dependent diabetes (HR 6.17, 95% CI 1.32-28.92, p = 0.021) and increasing cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.89-3.91, p < 0.0001). Significant risk factors for 1 year all-cause mortality were New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV (HR 6.25, 95% CI 1.55-25.24, p = 0.010) and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.40-2.69, p < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained for cardiac-specific mortality.

Short-term outcomes of SAVR are excellent in elderly patients and age alone is not a predictor of poorer outcomes. However, the increased risk of mortality in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and those with severe functional impairment (NYHA class IV) should be carefully considered when selecting patients for SAVR in this elderly population.

Background/Objectives: In an era of growing evidence for transaortic valve implantation (TAVI), our research topic was the evaluation of how surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVRs) are performing in terms of short- and long-term outcomes in different risk categories. Methods: This was a single centre, prospective, and observational cohort study of consecutive patients with aortic valve stenosis, undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement using a biological or mechanical prosthesis, Freestyle™ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) graft, homograft, or Ross procedure. The participant data were collected by review of an internal database. The primary endpoints were all-cause operative mortality (in hospital and at 30 days) and late mortality at the follow-up date. The secondary composite endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications. Results: 1501 patients underwent SAVR; the mean age was 67 years (SD: 12.6). The in-hospital mortality was 1% (n = 16). At a median follow-up of 60 months, the survival rate was 98.7%. The main predictors for mortality were operative urgency and cardiogenic shock. The overall incidence of PPM was 2.3% (n = 34). Patients who underwent Ross procedure were younger (mean age: 20 years (SD: 1.7)), had a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and were all alive at follow-up. Conclusions: SAVR shows an excellent survival rate and a low rate of postoperative complications despite an increasing surgical risk. Recent advancements in technology, like sutureless/rapid deployment prostheses and minimally invasive techniques, are shown to have favourable effects on outcomes.

Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a rare and potentially fatal complication associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Owing to the paucity of existing institutional data, we sought to assess the incidence of postimplant AAD in patients who underwent TAVR at a single institution. All patients who underwent TAVR from 2013 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed to identify those who possessed clinical or radiologic evidence of AAD after TAVR. Follow-up and survival data were retrieved for all included patients. A total of 4,317 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 9 (0.2%) sustained an AAD. These patients had a mean age of 80 years (range 53 to 92), mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons 30-day mortality risk of 5.7% (2.4% to 16.7%), and mean effective aortic valve area of 0.8 cm2 (0.4 to 1.5 cm2). Preoperative maximum aortic diameter was 3.9 cm (2.6 to 4 cm). Of these 9 patients, 6 (67%) showed evidence of Stanford type A dissection, whereas 3 (33%) were diagnosed with Stanford type B dissection. The most common causes of dissection were posterior annular rupture by the transcatheter valve (THV) (44%) and THV embolization or "pop-out" into the ascending aorta (22%). A total of 6 patients (66.7%), comprising 5 type A (55.6%) and 1 type B (11.1%) aortic dissections, died within 30 days of AAD. The median time to follow-up in those surviving TAVR with intraoperative AAD was 1,042 days (range: 648 to 2,666). Surviving patients were managed through thoracic endovascular aortic repair and medical management. In conclusion, in this highly selected cohort of patients, our experience indicates that AAD after TAVR is a rare but often lethal intraprocedural sequela of THV implantation, especially in cases of type A aortic dissection.

The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) just two decades ago has transformed the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVR has not only extended the option of aortic valve replacement to patients deemed ineligible for surgery, it has also demonstrated similar or better short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at all levels of surgical risk. These benefits have been achieved with similar or lower costs compared with SAVR, at least in the first 1-2 years for intermediate- and low-risk patients. Longer-term data will further inform clinical and shared decision-making. SUMMARY FOR ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS: In just over two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a frontline approach for appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. A growing body of evidence documents similar or better clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness for transcatheter compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. Whether the mode is transcatheter or surgical, aortic valve replacement remains underutilized in patients with clear indications for intervention.

The NOTION trial, in this 10-year follow-up report, comprehensively compares transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. The study reveals similar outcomes in terms of mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. TAVR demonstrates advantages such as improved effective orifice area and transprosthetic gradients, along with reduced rates of new-onset atrial fibrillation. However, it is associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks. Concerns exist regarding the generalizability of findings and unblinding during outcome assessments.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains the preferred strategy for high-risk or elderly individuals with aortic valve (AV) stenosis who are not considered to be optimal surgical candidates. Recent evidence suggests that low-risk patients may benefit from TAVI as well. The current study evaluates midterm survival in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgical AV replacement (SAVR) versus TAVI.

The Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry (AVALON) compared isolated elective transfemoral TAVI or SAVR with sternotomy or minimally invasive approach in low-risk individuals performed between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score matching was conducted to determine SAVR controls for TAVI group in a 1-to-3 ratio with 0.2 caliper.

A total of 2393 patients undergoing elective surgery (1765 SAVR and 629 TAVI) with median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) score 1.81 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.36 to 2.53]) were initially included. Median follow-up was 2.72 years (IQR, 1.32-4.08; max 6.0). Propensity score matching returned 329 TAVI cases and 593 SAVR controls. Thirty-day mortality was 11 out of 329 (3.32%) in TAVI and 18 out of 593 (3.03%) in SAVR (risk ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.52-2.37; P = .801) groups, respectively. At 2 years, survival curves began to diverge in favor of SAVR, which was associated with 30% lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.496-0.997; P = .048).

Our data did not demonstrate a survival difference between TAVI and SAVR during the first 2 postprocedure years. After that time, SAVR is associated with improved survival. Extended observations from randomized trials in low-risk patients undergoing elective surgery are warranted to confirm these findings and draw definitive conclusions.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an important treatment in patients with aortic valve disease with the continuous advancement of technology and the improvement of outcomes. However, TAVR-related complications still increase patient morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a simple procedure that provides perioperative protection for many vital organs. However, the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR remains unclear based on inconsistent conclusions from different clinical studies. Therefore, we will perform a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficiency of RIPC on TAVR.

English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library), Chinese electronic databases (Wanfang Database, VIP Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and trial registry databases will be searched from inception to December 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials of RIPC on TAVR. We will calculate mean differences or standardised mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data, and the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data by Review Manager version 5.4. Fixed-effects model or random-effects model will be used according to the degree of statistical heterogeneity assessed by the I-square test. We will evaluate the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 and assess the evidence quality of each outcome by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The robustness of outcomes will be evaluated by trial sequential analysis. In addition, we will evaluate the publication bias of outcomes by Funnel plots and Egger's regression test.

Ethical approval was not required for this systematic review protocol. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

CRD42023462926.

Valvular heart disease is common and its prevalence is rapidly increasing worldwide. Effective medical therapies are insufficient and treatment was historically limited to the surgical techniques of valve repair or replacement, resulting in systematic underprovision of care to older patients and those with substantial comorbidities, frailty, or left ventricular dysfunction. Advances in imaging and surgical techniques over the past 20 years have transformed the management of valvular heart disease. Better understanding of the mechanisms and causes of disease and an increasingly extensive and robust evidence base provide a platform for the delivery of individualised treatment by multidisciplinary heart teams working within networks of diagnostic facilities and specialist heart valve centres. In this Series paper, we aim to provide an overview of the current and future management of valvular heart disease and propose treatment approaches based on an understanding of the underlying pathophysiology and the application of multidisciplinary treatment strategies to individual patients.

Advances in treatment of structural heart disease have been disruptive to cardiovascular surgery, and there have been discussions about how to incorporate these technologies into the surgeons' therapeutic arsenal. Transcatheter procedures, complex redo interventions, and endovascular aortic approaches are already practiced by cardiovascular surgeons in Brazil. The expansion of these techniques, coupled with recent changes in the country's medical residency program in cardiovascular surgery, has led to an urgent need to acquire catheter-based skills. In this article, we discuss these aspects in the light of the reality of cardiovascular surgery training in Brazil.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years.

The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD.

Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04-0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; P = .4).

In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.