OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR.
METHODS: Individual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events.
RESULTS: From January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7-5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469-1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403-1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6-9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9-5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664-0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378-0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674-0.707) and 0.560 (0.540-0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65-75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic strategy early after aortic valve replacement surgery with a biological valve remains controversial due to lack of high-quality evidence. Either oral anticoagulants or acetylsalicylic acid should be considered for the first 3 months. Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening on cardiac computed tomography has been associated with latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis and may be prevented with anticoagulation. We hypothesize that anticoagulation with apixaban is superior to single antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid in reducing hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening of bioprosthetic aortic valve prostheses.
METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, randomized trial, patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement surgery with rapid deployment bioprosthetic valves will be randomized. The treatment group will receive 5 mg of apixaban twice a day for the first 3 months and 100 mg of acetylsalicylic acid thereafter. The control group will be administered 100 mg of acetylsalicylic acid once a day, indefinitely. After the 3-month treatment period, a contrast-enhanced electrocardiogram-gated cardiac computed tomography will be performed to identify hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening of the bioprosthetic valve. The primary objective of the study is to assess the impact of apixaban on the prevention of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening at 3 months. The secondary and exploratory endpoints will be clinical outcomes and safety profiles of the two strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: Antithrombotic therapy after aortic valve replacement is used to prevent valve thrombosis and systemic thromboembolism. Latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is a precursor of clinically significant prosthetic valve dysfunction or thromboembolic events. The hallmark feature of latent bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening on cardiac computed tomography. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis occurs frequently in bioprosthetic aortic valves, more commonly in transcatheter than in surgical valves. There is no evidence on the effect of direct oral anticoagulants on the incidence of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening after surgical aortic valve replacement with rapid deployment bioprostheses.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06184113. Registered on December 28, 2023.

BACKGROUND: The dry-pericardium Vienna transcatheter aortic valve system is repositionable and retrievable, already premounted on the delivery system, eliminating the need for assembly and crimping of the device before valve implantation.
METHODS: The VIVA first-in-human feasibility study, a prospective, nonrandomized, single-center trial, evaluated the Vienna aortic valve in 10 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, who were at intermediate or high surgical risk. This study, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04861805), focused on the safety, feasibility, clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Vienna system up to 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean patient age was 79 ± 5 years, 60% male. Valve sizes used: 26 mm (10%), 29 mm (30%), 31 mm (60%). Key hemodynamic improvements were significant: mean aortic valve pressure gradient (mmHg) decreased from 48.7 to 8.1, aortic valve area (cm2) increased from 0.75 to 1.91, and maximum jet velocity through the aortic valve (m/s) decreased from 4.41 to 1.95 (p < 0.0001). No moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was observed, and computed tomography scans revealed no evidence of hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening. The study recorded one life-threatening bleeding event, two cases requiring postprocedural pacemaker implantation, and three ischemic events, with only one causing lasting neurological impairment. Importantly, there were no cases of cardiovascular mortality and only one noncardiovascular death, which was confirmed as unrelated to the device.
CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates the Vienna valve as a potential option for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, designed to streamline the procedure and potentially lower healthcare costs by reducing resource and equipment needs, also procedural errors. Further research is essential to thoroughly evaluate its safety and efficacy.

Background: An unexplained condition that follows transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is platelet count reduction (PR). According to published research, patients with balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) had a greater PR than those with self-expandable valves (SEVs). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical effects of PR following TAVI. Methods: In total, 1.122 adult TAVI patients were enrolled. Propensity score matching was carried out in a 1:1 ratio between patients with BEVs and those with SEVs. The analysis included changes in platelet count, in-hospital mortality, and early postoperative adverse events. Results: Notably, 632 patients were matched (BEV:316; SEV:316). All patients\' post-procedural platelet counts changed according to a parabolic curve, using a mixed regression model for repeated analyses (estimate = -0.931; standard error = 0.421; p = 0.027). The platelet count varied comparably in patients with BEVs and SEVs (estimate = -4.276, standard error = 4.760, p = 0.369). The average time for obtaining the nadir platelet count value was three days after implantation (BEV: 146 (108-181) vs. SEV: 149 (120-186); p = 0.142). Overall, 14.6% of patients (92/632) had post-procedural platelet count <100,000/µL. There was no difference between the two prosthesis types (BEV:51/316; SEV:41/316; p = 0.266). Thrombocytopenia was found to be significantly linked to blood product transfusions, lengthier stays in the intensive care unit and hospital, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: TAVI, irrespective of the type of implanted valve, is linked to a significant but temporary PR. Thrombocytopenia increases the risk of serious complications and in-hospital death in TAVI patients. To explore and clarify the causes and associated effects, further prospective research is necessary.

BACKGROUND: The choice of an artificial mitral valve (MV) is a crucial clinical decision that affects the long-term survival and quality of life of patients. However, current guidelines recommend selecting MV based on patient age and life expectancy at the time of mitral valve replacement (MVR), without considering the etiology of MV disease. This study aimed to investigate whether MV disease etiology should be considered when choosing a valve for MVR and to evaluate the impact of MV disease etiology on long-term patient survival.
METHODS: Using data (2002-2018) from Taiwan\'s National Health Insurance Research Database, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study to compare the biological and mechanical valves in terms of all-cause mortality as the primary outcome. The inverse probability of the treatment weighting method was used to reduce the effects of the confounding factors. The following etiologies were assessed: infective endocarditis, rheumatic heart disease, ischemic mitral regurgitation, and degenerative mitral regurgitation.
RESULTS: In patients aged below 70 years, it was observed that mechanical valves demonstrated an association with benefits compared to biological valves in the context of survival. In patients with infective endocarditis aged below 72 years, mechanical valves were associated with survival benefits, but not in those with stroke during hospitalization. These valves were also found to be linked with survival advantages for patients with rheumatic heart disease aged below 60 years and for those with degenerative mitral regurgitation aged below 72 years. However, no age-dependent effects of valve type on all-cause mortality were observed in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation.
CONCLUSIONS: The etiology of MV disease appears to be important in the selection of a suitable MV and determination of a cutoff age for mechanical and biological MVR.

BACKGROUND: Coronary re-engagement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) systematically implanted using commissural alignment (CA) techniques has been poorly investigated.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate unsuccessful coronary cannulation, and its predictors, after TAVR using self-expanding devices implanted using CA techniques.
METHODS: RE-ACCESS 2 (Reobtain Coronary Ostia Cannulation Beyond Transcatheter Aortic Valve Stent 2) was an investigator-driven, single-center, prospective study that enrolled consecutive TAVR patients receiving Evolut and ACURATE THVs implanted using CA techniques. The primary endpoint was unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR. The secondary endpoint was the identification of postprocedural predictors of unfeasible, selective coronary ostia re-engagement on computed tomographic angiography performed after TAVR.
RESULTS: Among 127 patients enrolled from September 2021 to December 2022, 7 (5.5%) had unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR, and 6 of them received Evolut THVs (7.5% vs 2.3%; P = 0.26). Failure of left coronary artery cannulation was similar between Evolut and ACURATE THVs (2.5% vs 2.1%; P = 1.00), whereas that of right coronary artery cannulation was prevalent in the Evolut group (6.3% vs 0.0%; P = 0.16). Coronary overlap was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate the right coronary artery (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; P = 0.03), but not in ACURATE recipients (P = 0.39). Severe misalignment of Evolut THVs was associated with the inability to selectively cannulate both coronary arteries (OR: 24.7; 95% CI: 1.9-312.9; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Unsuccessful coronary cannulation after TAVR using self-expanding THVs implanted using CA techniques was reported in 5.5% of cases, with the majority involving the Evolut THV. Commissural misalignment affected coronary cannulation after TAVR mostly in Evolut recipients.

BACKGROUND: The sutureless Perceval S bioprosthesis is associated with postoperative thrombocytopenia. Our objectives were to compare the incidence, severity, and clinical implications of thrombocytopenia after aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Perceval S or the Trifecta bioprosthesis.
METHODS: Patients who underwent AVR between March 2016 and August 2019 using the Perceval or Trifecta were retrospectively included. The primary endpoint was the nadir in platelet counts within 15 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included postoperative hemolysis and inflammatory parameters, as well as clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.
RESULTS: Overall, 156 patients were included (Perceval, n = 103; Trifecta, n = 53). Preoperatively, there was no difference in platelet counts between the two groups. Postoperatively, the Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with a greater decrease in platelet counts. The nadir was reached at Day 3 for both groups, but thrombocytopenia was more severe for the Perceval S (Perceval S vs. Trifecta, 89.2 ± 37.7 × 109/L vs. 106.5 ± 34.1 × 109/L, p = 0.01). No difference regarding lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, and white blood cells count was found. All-cause 30-day mortality rates (both valves, 2%, p = 0.98), hospital lengths of stay, and re-operation rates were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: The Perceval S bioprosthesis was associated with more severe postoperative thrombocytopenia. This did not translate into higher short-term morbidity or mortality.

BACKGROUND: Rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) is an alternative to conventional AVR (cAVR) for aortic stenosis. Benefits include a reduction in operative times, facilitation of minimal access surgery and superior haemodynamics compared to conventional valves. However, further evidence is required to inform guidelines, preferably in the form of propensity-matched studies that include mid-term follow-up data.
METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study comparing the Perceval and conventional Perimount Magna Ease valve for short- and mid-term clinical parameters and size-matched mid-term echocardiographic parameters (n = 102 in both groups) from 2014 to 2020. Data were extracted from a nationally managed dataset.
RESULTS: There were no demographic differences between the matched groups. The Perceval group had shorter cross-clamp time (Perceval 62 [49-81] minutes; Perimount 79 [63-102] minutes, P < 0.001), shorter bypass time (Perceval 89 [74-114] minutes; Perimount 104 [84-137] minutes, P < 0.001), and more frequent minimally-invasive approaches (Perceval 28%; Perimount 5%, P < 0.001). Size-matched haemodynamics showed initially higher gradients in the Perceval group, but haemodynamics equalised at 12 + months. The Perceval group had a more favourable % change in the left ventricular posterior wall dimension at 2 + years (Perceval - 4.8 ± 18; Perimount 17 ± 2).
CONCLUSIONS: The Perceval facilitated shorter operations, which may benefit intermediate-high-risk, elderly patients with comorbidities requiring concomitant procedures. It also facilitated minimally invasive surgery. Size-matched haemodynamic performance was similar at mid-term follow-up, with the Perceval possibly better facilitating regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines outcome and durability of physician made bovine pericardial tube grafts in aortic infections in all anatomical locations.
METHODS: This was a retrospective and prospective international multicentre study. Peri-operative and long term outcomes of patients undergoing in situ aortic reconstruction for native or graft infections with physician made bovine pericardial tube grafts between January 2008 and December 2020 in four European tertiary referral centres were analysed. The primary endpoint was recurrent aortic infection. Secondary endpoints were persistent infection, aortic re-operation for infection, graft related complications, and death.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty eight patients (77% male, mean age 67 ± 11 years) were identified: 38 (23%) with native and 130 (77%) with aortic graft infection. The thirty day mortality rate was 15% (n = 26) overall, 11% (n = 4), and 17% (n = 22) for native and aortic graft infections, respectively (p = .45). Median follow up was 26 months (interquartile range [IQR] 10, 51). Estimated survival at one, two, three, and five years was 64%, 60%, 57%, and 50%, and significantly better for native (81%, 77%, 77%, and 69%) than for graft infections (58%, 55%, 51%, and 44%; p = .011). Nine patients (5.3%) had persistent infection and 10 patients (6%) had aortic re-infection after a median of 10 months (IQR 5, 22), resulting in an estimated freedom from re-infection at one, two, three, and five years of 94%, 92%, 90%, and 86%. Estimated freedom from graft complications at one, two, three, and five years was 91%, 89%, 87%, and 87%.
CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre study demonstrates low re-infection rates when using physician made bovine pericardial tube grafts, comparable to those of other biological grafts. The rate of graft complications, mainly anastomotic aneurysms and stenoses, was low, while graft degeneration was absent. Physician made bovine pericardial tube grafts are an excellent tool for in situ reconstruction in the setting of native aortic infection or aortic graft infection.

BACKGROUND: The elderly population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Aortic valve disease increases with age. Bioprostheses are the valves of choice for older patients; however, the optimal tissue valve remains undetermined. The purpose of this investigation was to perform a life-of-patient survival comparison of the prototypical porcine and pericardial prostheses in elderly patients.
METHODS: The study population (N = 1480) consisted of patients 65 years of age and older who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement from 1990 through 2005 with a Carpentier-Edwards Porcine (n = 650) or Pericardial (n = 830) bioprosthesis. Propensity score-matched groups were created.
RESULTS: Valve selection was not associated with operative mortality. Survival estimates at 10 years were better for Pericardial (41.8%; 95% CI: 37.9 to 45.7) than Porcine (32.6%; 95% CI: 28.8 to 36.3); and 5.2% (95% CI: 3.2 to 7.1) versus 2.0%; (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.2) at 20 years (p < 0.001). E-value analysis found minimal influence of unknown study confounders. Factors associated with long-term mortality were porcine valve (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001), preop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (p = 0.011), congestive heart failure (p = 0.003), New York Heart Association Class III or IV (p = 0.004), surgical history-reoperation (p = 0.012), transient ischemic attack (p = 0.009), prolonged ventilation (p = 0.010), postop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.009). The indexed Effective Orifice Area (EOAi) was assessed and did not influence observed long-term survival differences.
CONCLUSIONS: This unusual lifetime study provided substantial evidence for the superiority of the pericardial over the porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position in elderly patients. It demonstrated enhanced long-term survival benefits for elderly patients without any increase in perioperative mortality. It is intended to inform future investigation into aortic valve design.