Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as established treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Technical developments in valve design have addressed previous limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leakage. However, there are only limited data available for the comparison of newer generation self-expandable valve (SEV) and balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Methods and results SOLVE-TAVI is a multicentre, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI comparing SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The primary efficacy composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate/severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.4% of SEV patients and 26.1% of BEV patients meeting the prespecified criteria of equivalence [rate difference −2.39 (90% confidence interval, CI −9.45 to 4.66); Pequivalence = 0.04]. Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% vs. 2.3% [rate difference −0.93 (90% CI −4.78 to 2.92); Pequivalence < 0.001], stroke 0.5% vs. 4.7% [rate difference 4.20 (90% CI 0.12 to 8.27); Pequivalence = 0.003], moderate/severe paravalvular leak 3.4% vs. 1.5% [rate difference −1.89 (90% CI −5.86 to 2.08); Pequivalence = 0.0001], and permanent pacemaker implantation 23.0% vs. 19.2% [rate difference −3.85 (90% CI −10.41 to 2.72) in SEV vs. BEV patients; Pequivalence = 0.06]. Conclusion In patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, newer generation SEV and BEV are equivalent for the primary valve-related efficacy endpoint. These findings support the safe application of these newer generation percutaneous valves in the majority of patients with some specific preferences based on individual valve anatomy.

Background: In clinical practice, local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) is performed in roughly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, no randomized data assessing the safety and efficacy of CS versus general anesthesia (GA) are available. Methods: SOLVE-TAVI is a multicenter, open-label, 2x2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR comparing CS versus GA. The primary efficacy endpoint was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05) and consisted of the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotic treatment, and acute kidney injury at 30 days. Results: The primary composite endpoint occurred in 27.2% of CS and 26.4% of GA patients (rate difference 0.8 [90%CI -6.2 to 7.8]; P equivalence =0.015). Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% versus 2.3% (rate difference 1.0 [90%CI - 2.9 to 4.8]; P equivalence <0.001), stroke 2.4% versus 2.8% (rate difference -0.4 [90%CI -3.8 to 3.8]; P equivalence <0.001), myocardial infarction 0.5% versus 0.0% (rate difference 0.5 [90%CI -3.0 to 3.9]; P equivalence <0.001), infection requiring antibiotics 21.1% versus 22.0% (rate difference -0.9 [90%CI -7.5 to 5.7]; P equivalence =0.011), acute kidney injury 9.0% versus 9.2% (rate difference - 0.2 [90%CI -5.2 to 4.8]; P equivalence =0.0005). There was a lower need for inotropes or vasopressors with CS (62.8%) versus GA (97.3%) (rate difference -34.4 [90%CI -41.0 to -27.8]). Conclusions: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, use of CS compared with GA resulted in similar outcomes for the primary efficacy endpoint. These findings suggest that CS can be safely applied for TAVR. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02737150

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare treatment of moderate to severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) with either conventional surgery or the mitral valve edge-to-edge device (MitraClip®) in very elderly patients. The newly introduced MitraClip device has demonstrated promising acute results in treating this patient cohort. Also noteworthy is the fact that patients who otherwise would have been denied surgery are increasingly referred for treatment with the MitraClip device. We sought to review our institutional experience, comparing outcomes in both surgical and MitraClip arms of treatment in the elderly population with symptomatic MR.MethodsFrom October 2008 through October 2014, 136 consecutive patients aged ≥ 80 with moderate to severe symptomatic MR were scheduled for either conventional surgery or MitraClip intervention. 56 patients ≥ 80 were operated for symptomatic MR and 80 patients ≥ 80 were treated with the mitraClip device. Patients suitable for this study were identified from our hospital database. Patients ≥80 with moderate/severe symptomatic MR treated with either conventional surgery or the MitraClip device were eligible for our analysis. We compared the surgical patient cohort with the mitraClip patient cohort after eliminating patients that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Forty-two patients were identified from the conventional cohort who were then compared with 42 patients from the mitraClip cohort. Forty-two patients (50%) underwent mitral valve repair or replacement (40.5% functional MR, 59.5% organic/mixed MR) and 42 patients (50%) underwent MitraClip intervention (50% functional MR, 50% organic/mixed MR). Associated procedures in the conventional surgical group were myocardial revascularization 38%, pulmonary vein ablation 23.8%, left atrial appendage resection 52.4% and PFO occlusion 11.9%.ResultsPatients who underwent MitraClip treatment were though slightly older but the differences did not attain statistical significance (mean, 82.2 ± 1.65 vs 81.7 ± 1.35 years, p = 0,100), had lower LVEF (mean, 47.6 ± 14.2 vs 53.4 ± 14.3, p = 0.072), lower logistic EuroScore II (mean, 11.3 ± 5.63 vs 12.1 ± 10.6, p = 0.655) but higher STS risk score (mean, 11.8 ± 6.7 vs 8.1 ± 5.6, p = 0.008) respectively compared to surgical patients. Procedural success was 100% vs 96% in surgery and MitraClip groups respectively. Thirty -day mortality was 7.1% vs 4.8% (p = 1.000) in surgery and MitraClip group respectively. Residual postoperative MR ≥2 at discharge was present in none of the patients treated surgically, whereas this was the case in 10 (23.8%) patients treated with the MitraClip device. At 1 year a cumulative number of four (9.52%) patients died in the surgical group vs 9 (21.4%) patients who died in the MitraClip group.ConclusionsElderly patients presenting with moderate to severe symptomatic MR may either be treated by conventional surgery or with the MitraClip device with acceptable acute outcomes. The decision for treatment with the MitraClip device should not depend on age alone ...

No abstract

BackgroundCardiovascular diseases are the major cause of death globally and represent a major economic burden on health care systems. Positive effects of disease management programs have been shown for patients with heart failure (HF). Remote monitoring and telemonitoring with active intervention are beneficial in atrial fibrillation (AF) and therapy-resistant hypertension (TRH), respectively. For these patients, we have developed a novel integrated care concept (NICC) which combines telemedicine with intensive support by a care center, including a call center, an integrated care network including inpatient and outpatient care providers and guideline therapy for patients.MethodsThe aim of the study is to demonstrate the superiority of NICC over guideline therapy alone. The trial is designed as open-label, bi-center, parallel-group design with two groups and a blinded observer. Patients will be included if they are either inpatients or if they are referred to the outpatient clinic of the hospitals by their treating physician. Randomization will be done individually with stratification by cardiovascular disease (AF, HF, TRH), center and admission type. Primary endpoints are based on the 1-year observation period after randomization. The first primary endpoint is the composite endpoint consisting of mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction. The number of hospitalizations form the second primary endpoint. The third primary endpoint is identical to the first primary endpoint plus cardiac decompensation. Adjustments for multiple testing are done using a fall-back strategy. Secondary endpoints include patient adherence, health care costs, quality of life, and safety. A sample size of 2930 gives 80% power at the two-sided 2.5% test level for the first primary endpoint. The power for the second primary endpoint is 99.8% at this sample size, and it is 80% with 1086 patients.DiscussionThis study will inform care providers whether quality of care can be improved by an integrated care concept providing telemedicine through a round-the-clock call center approach. We expect that cost of the NICC will be lower than standard care because of reduced hospitalizations. If the study has a positive result, NICC is planned to be immediately rolled out in the federal state of Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and other federal states in Germany. The trial will also guide additional research to disentangle the effects of this complex intervention.Trial registrationDRKS, ID: DRKS00013124. Registered on 5 October 2017;ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03317951. Registered on 17 October 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2502-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.