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

Background: Both radiofrequency and ultrasound endovascular renal sympathetic denervation (RDN) have proven clinical efficacy for the treatment of hypertension. We performed a head-to-head comparison of these technologies. Methods: Patients with resistant hypertension were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 manner to receive either treatment with (1) radiofrequency RDN of the main renal arteries; (2) radiofrequency RDN of the main renal arteries, side branches, and accessories; or (3) an endovascular ultrasound–based RDN of the main renal artery. The primary end point was change in systolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure at 3 months. Results: Between June 2015 and June 2018, 120 patients were enrolled (mean age, 64±9 years±SD; mean daytime blood pressure, 153/86±12/13 mm Hg). Of these, 39 were randomly assigned to radiofrequency main renal artery ablation, 39 to combined radiofrequency ablation of the main artery and branches, and 42 to ultrasound-based treatment. Baseline daytime blood pressure, clinical characteristics, and treatment were well balanced between the groups. At 3 months, systolic daytime ambulatory blood pressure decreased by 9.5±12.3 mm Hg ( P <0.001) in the whole cohort. Although blood pressure was significantly more reduced in the ultrasound ablation group than in the radiofrequency ablation group of the main renal artery (–13.2±13.7 versus –6.5±10.3 mm Hg; mean difference, –6.7 mm Hg; global P =0.038 by ANOVA, adjusted P =0.043), no significant difference was found between the radiofrequency ablation groups (–8.3±11.7 mm Hg for additional side branch ablation; mean difference, –1.8 mm Hg; adjusted P >0.99). Similarly, the blood pressure reduction was not found to be significantly different between the ultrasound and the side branch ablation groups. Frequencies of blood pressure response ≥5 mm Hg were not significantly different (global P =0.77). Conclusions: In patients with resistant hypertension, endovascular ultrasound–based RDN was found to be superior to radiofrequency ablation of the main renal arteries only, whereas a combined approach of radiofrequency ablation of the main arteries, accessories, and side branches was not. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02920034.

Background: Cardiac surgery often represents the only treatment option in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, IE surgery may lead to a sudden release of inflammatory mediators, which is associated with the severity of postoperative organ dysfunction. We investigated the impact of hemoadsorption during IE surgery on postoperative organ dysfunction. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, non-blinded, controlled trial assigned patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE to hemoadsorption [integration of CytoSorb® to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)] or control. The Primary outcome (ΔSOFA) was defined as the difference between the mean total postoperative sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA), calculated maximally to the 9th postoperative day, and the basal SOFA score. The analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. A predefined inter-group comparison was done using a linear mixed model for ΔSOFA including surgeon and baseline SOFA as fixed effect covariates and with the surgical center as random effect. The SOFA score assesses dysfunction in six organ systems, each scored from zero to four. Higher scores indicate worsening dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy. Cytokines were measured in the first 50 patients. Results: Between January 17, 2018 and January 31, 2020, A total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to hemoadsorption (n=142) or control (n=146). Four patients in the hemoadsorption and two in the control group were excluded as they did not undergo surgery. The primary outcome ΔSOFA did not differ between the hemoadsorption and the control group (1.79 ± 3.75 and 1.93 ± 3.53, respectively, 95% CI: −1.30 to 0.83, p=0.6766). Mortality at 30 days (21% hemoadsorption vs 22% control, p=0.782), the durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. Levels of IL-1β and IL-18 at the end of CPB were significantly lower in the hemoadsorption than in the control group. Conclusions: This randomized trial failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction through intraoperative hemoadsorption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Although hemoadsorption reduced plasma cytokines at the end of CPB, there was no difference in any of the clinically relevant outcome points.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment option for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), and is most commonly performed through the transfemoral access route. Percutaneous access site closure can be achieved using dedicated plug-based or suture-based vascular closure device (VCD) strategies, but randomized comparative studies are scarce. Methods: The CHOICE-CLOSURE (Randomized Comparison of CatHeter-based Strategies fOr Interventional ACcess SitE CLOSURE during Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter study, in which patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR were randomly assigned to vascular access site closure using either a pure plug-based technique (MANTA, Teleflex, Wayne, Pennsylvania) with no additional VCDs or a primary suture-based technique (ProGlide, Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, Illinois) potentially complemented by a small-plug. The primary endpoint consisted of access-site or access-related major and minor vascular complications during index hospitalization, defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included the rate of access-site or access-related bleeding, VCD failure, and time to hemostasis Results: A total of 516 patients were included and randomized. The mean age of the study population was 80.5±6.1 years, 55.4% were male, 7.6% of patients had peripheral vascular disease, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.1±2.9%. The primary endpoint occurred in 19.4% (50/258) of the pure plug-based group and 12.0% (31/258) of the primary suture-based group (relative risk [RR]: 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-2.44, p=0.029). Access-site or access-related bleeding occurred in 11.6% vs. 7.4% (RR: 1.58, 95%CI: 0.91-2.73, p=0.133) and device failure in 4.7% vs. 5.4% (RR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.40-1.82, p=0.841) in the respective groups. Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in the pure plug-based group (80 [32, 180] vs. 240 [174, 316] seconds, p<0.001). Conclusions: Among patients treated with transfemoral TAVR, a pure plug-based vascular closure technique using the MANTA VCD is associated with a higher rate of access-site or access-related vascular complications but a shorter time to hemostasis compared to a primary suture-based technique using the ProGlide VCD.