Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain. METHODS:Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS:Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR. CONCLUSIONS:For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

BACKGROUND:The third-generation MitraClip NTR/XTR transcatheter edge-to-edge repair system was introduced to assist in leaflet grasping with the longer clip arms of MitraClip XTR and to improve ease of use with the modified delivery catheter. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The EXPAND study evaluated contemporary real-world outcomes in subjects with mitral regurgitation (MR) treated with the third-generation MitraClip NTR/XTR transcatheter edge-to-edge repair system. METHODS:EXPAND is a prospective, multicenter, international, single-arm study that enrolled patients with primary MR and secondary MR at 57 centers. Follow-up was conducted through 12 months. Echocardiograms were analyzed by an echocardiographic core laboratories. Study outcomes included: MR severity, functional capacity measured by New York Heart Association functional class, quality of life measured by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, heart failure hospitalizations, all-cause mortality. RESULTS:1,041 patients were enrolled from April 2018 through March 2019, of which 50.5% had primary or mixed etiology. Implant success was 98.9%; 1.5 ± 0.6 clips were implanted per subject. Significant MR reduction from baseline (≥MR 3+: 56.0%) to 30 days (≤MR 1+:88.8%) was maintained through 1 year (MR ≤1+: 89.2%). A total of 84.5% and 93.0% of subjects in primary MR and secondary MR, respectively, had ≤1+ MR at 1 year. Significant improvements were observed in clinical outcomes (New York Heart Association functional class I/II in 80.3%, +21.6 improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score) at 1 year. All-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations at 1 year were 14.9% and 18.9%, respectively, which was significantly lower than previous studies. CONCLUSIONS:The study demonstrates treatment with the third-generation system resulted in substantial reduction of MR in a contemporary real-world practice, compared with the results of earlier EVEREST and COAPT trials.(The MitraClip® EXPAND Study of the Next Generation of MitraClip® Devices [EXPAND]; NCT03502811).

Background The current standard of care for the treatment of patients with primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is surgical mitral valve repair. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip device provides a less invasive treatment option for patients with both primary and secondary MR. Worldwide, >150 000 patients have been treated with the MitraClip device. However, in the United States, MitraClip is approved for use only in primary patients with MR who are at high or prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery. The REPAIR MR (Percutaneous MitraClip Device or Surgical Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Primary Mitral Regurgitation Who Are Candidates for Surgery) trial is designed to compare early and late outcomes associated with transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip and surgical repair of primary MR in older or moderate surgical risk patients. Methods and Results The REPAIR MR trial is a prospective, randomized, parallel-controlled, open-label multicenter, noninferiority trial for the treatment of severe primary MR (verified by an independent echocardiographic core laboratory). Patients with severe MR and indications for surgery because of symptoms (New York Heart Association class II-IV), or without symptoms with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤60%, pulmonary artery systolic pressure >50 mm Hg, or left ventricular end-systolic diameter ≥40 mm are eligible for the trial provided they meet the moderate surgical risk criteria as follows: (1) ≥75 years of age, or (2) if <75 years of age, then the subject has a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk Of Mortality score of ≥2% for mitral repair (or Society of Thoracic Surgeons replacement score of ≥4%), or the presence of a comorbidity that may introduce a surgery-specific risk. The local surgeon must determine that the mitral valve can be surgically repaired. Additionally, an independent eligibility committee will confirm that the MR can be reduced to mild or less with both the MitraClip and surgical mitral valve repair with a high degree of certainty. A total of 500 eligible subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the MitraClip device or to undergo surgical mitral valve repair (control group). There are 2 co-primary end points for the trial, both of which will be evaluated at 2 years. Each subject will be followed for 10 years after enrollment. The study has received approval from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and enrolled its first subject in July 2020. Conclusions The REPAIR MR trial will determine the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the MitraClip in patients with primary MR who are at moderate surgical risk and are candidates for surgical MV repair. The trial will generate contemporary comparative clinical evidence for the MitraClip device and surgical MV repair. Registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04198870; NCT04198870.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair is a guideline-recommended treatment option for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). The purpose of this analysis was to report contemporary real-world outcomes in SMR patients treated with third-generation MitraClip systems. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:EXPAND is a prospective, multicentre, international, single-arm study with 1041 patients treated for mitral regurgitation (MR) with MitraClip NTR/XTR, with 30-day and 1-year follow-up. All echocardiograms were analysed by an independent echocardiographic core lab. Study outcomes included procedural outcomes, durability of MR reduction, and major adverse events including all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations (HFH). A subgroup of 413 symptomatic patients (age 74.7 ± 10.1 years, 58% male) with severe SMR were included. MR reduction to MR ≤ 1+ and MR ≤ 2+ was achieved in 93.0% and 98.5% of patients, respectively, which was sustained at 1-year follow-up. All-cause mortality was 17.7% at 1-year- follow-up, and the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality or first HFH occurred in 34% of patients. This combined endpoint was significantly less frequently observed in MR ≤ 1+ patients (Kaplan-Maier estimates: 29.7% vs. 69.6% for MR ≤ 1+ vs. MR  ≥ 2 +; p < 0.0001). New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved significantly from baseline (NYHA ≤ II: 17%) to 1-year follow-up (NYHA ≤ II: 78%) (p < 0.0001). While MR reduction was comparable between NTR-only vs. XTR-only treated patients, less XTR clips were required for achieving MR reduction. CONCLUSIONS:Under real-world conditions, optimal sustained MR reduction to MR ≤ 1+ was achieved in a high percentage of patients with third-generation MitraClip, which translated into symptomatic improvement and low event rates. These results appear to be comparable with recent randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Percutaneous structural interventions have provided patients with an effective therapeutic option, and its growth has been aided by echocardiography. We describe the vital role that transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) plays in screening patients prior to their procedure. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:A multimodality imaging approach is employed by the valve team, but TEE plays a unique role in diagnosis and planning. Utilization of all TEE views and features such as biplane, 3D imaging, and multiplanar reconstruction ensures accurate assessment of the structural lesion of interest. The role of TEE remains essential in the planning of structural interventions, and these studies should be performed in a systematic and comprehensive manner.

IMPORTANCE:In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE:To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. INTERVENTION:Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. RESULTS:A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm2; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Gram-negative organisms of the AACEK group, formerly known as HACEK, rarely cause endocarditis. CASE SERIES/METHODS:We present three cases of bacterial endocarditis, involving native and prosthetic valves, caused by AACEK organisms. In two patients, Cardiobacterium hominis was the responsible organism, and in a third, Aggregatibacter aphrophilus was implicated. A dental source of infection was identified in two patients, and in all three patients, the presentation of endocarditis was subacute. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This case series highlights the indolent nature of infection with the AACEK organisms. It also demonstrates the crucial role of multimodality imaging, especially transesophageal echocardiography, in the diagnosis of AACEk endocarditis of both native and prosthetic valves, and in delineating the extent of abscess in those with prosthetic valve infection.

Herein we present a case of an 80-year-old gentleman who presented with exertional dyspnea status post aortic valve replacement with #23 Trifecta pericardial St. Jude aortic bioprosthetic valve (BV) 12 years prior. He subsequently underwent valve re-replacement due cusp calcification. Histologically, the surgically explanted BV revealed Congophilic deposits with birefringence under cross-polarized light. Extensive work-up identified no systemic source of amyloid in this patient. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based (LC-MS/MS) proteomics showed the amyloid was composed of human-origin amyloid signature proteins (apolipoprotein A4, apolipoprotein E, serum amyloid P) and human-origin mu heavy chains. Background bovine collagen was also present. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) showed collections of 7.5-10 nm nonbranching fibrils, consistent with amyloid. Using these techniques, we classified the amyloid as Mu heavy chain, deposition of which is highly unusual in BV. Finally, we provide a review of the literature regarding isolated amyloid deposition in BV.