Aims 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. Methods and results 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)]. Conclusions 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.

No abstract

Pre-existing PPM of the failed surgical valve is strongly and independently associated with increased risk for mortality following ViV implantation.

Aortic stenosis (AS) results in several left ventricular (LV) disturbances as well as progressive left atrial (LA) enlargement and dysfunction. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reverses LV remodelling and improves overall systolic function but its effect on LA function remains undetermined. The aim of this prospective, longitudinal study was to investigate the effects of TAVI on LA structure and function. We studied thirty-two patients with severe symptomatic AS who underwent TAVI, using standard and 2-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography before, at 40-day and at 3-month follow-up. Following TAVI, mean transvalvular gradient decreased (p < 0.001). Both LA area index and LA volume index decreased at 40-day follow-up (16.2 ± 6.4 vs. 12.5 ± 2.9 cm2/m2, and 47.3 ± 12.0 vs. 42.8 ± 12.5 mL/m2, respectively, p < 0.05) and values remained unchanged at 3 months. The reduction of LA size was accompanied by a significant increase in global peak atrial longitudinal strain (14.4 ± 3.9 vs. 19.1 ± 4.7%, p < 0.001) and in global peak atrial contraction strain (8.4 ± 2.5 vs. 11.0 ± 4.1%, p < 0.05) at 3-month follow-up. LA stiffness measurements significantly decreased 3 months after TAVI (0.93 ± 0.59 vs. 0.65 ± 0.37, respectively, p < 0.001). Trans-aortic mean gradient change and pre-procedural LA volume were identified as predictors of global peak atrial longitudinal strain increase (β = -0.41, β = -0.35, respectively, p < 0.0001) while pre-procedural LA volume and trans-aortic mean gradient change as predictor of LA volume index reduction 3 months after TAVI (β = -0.37, β = -0.28, respectively, p < 0.0001). TAVI is associated with significant recovery of LA structure and function suggesting a reverse cavity remodelling. Such functional recovery is primarily determined by the severity of pre-procedural valve stenosis.

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.