Explore the vast range of titles available.

Severe tricuspid regurgitation is associated with disabling symptoms and an increased risk of death. Data regarding outcomes after percutaneous transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement are needed. In this international, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 400 patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement and medical therapy (valve-replacement group) or medical therapy alone (control group). The hierarchical composite primary outcome was death from any cause, implantation of a right ventricular assist device or heart transplantation, postindex tricuspid-valve intervention, hospitalization for heart failure, an improvement of at least 10 points in the score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary (KCCQ-OS), an improvement of at least one New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and an improvement of at least 30 m on the 6-minute walk distance. A win ratio was calculated for the primary outcome by comparing all possible patient pairs, starting with the first event in the hierarchy. A total of 267 patients were assigned to the valve-replacement group and 133 to the control group. At 1 year, the win ratio favoring valve replacement was 2.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.62; P<0.001). In comparisons of patient pairs, those in the valve-replacement group had more wins than the control group with respect to death from any cause (14.8% vs. 12.5%), postindex tricuspid-valve intervention (3.2% vs. 0.6%), and improvement in the KCCQ-OS score (23.1% vs. 6.0%), NYHA class (10.2% vs. 0.8%), and 6-minute walk distance (1.1% vs. 0.9%). The valve-replacement group had fewer wins than the control group with respect to the annualized rate of hospitalization for heart failure (9.7% vs. 10.0%). Severe bleeding occurred in 15.4% of the valve-replacement group and in 5.3% of the control group (P = 0.003); new permanent pacemakers were implanted in 17.4% and 2.3%, respectively (P<0.001). For patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement was superior to medical therapy alone for the primary composite outcome, driven primarily by improvements in symptoms and quality of life. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; TRISCEND II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04482062.).

A randomized trial that enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk showed that transcatheter aortic-valve implantation was noninferior to surgical aortic-valve replacement at 1 year.

A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

In a randomized trial, 1468 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low risk for death with surgery were assigned to either transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve or surgical aortic-valve replacement. At 2 years, TAVR was noninferior to surgery with respect to death or disabling stroke.

In a randomized trial, 1000 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low risk for death with surgery were assigned to undergo transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve or surgical aortic-valve replacement. At 1 year, the rate of death, stroke, or rehospitalization was significantly lower in the TAVR group.

Among patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter mitral-valve repair resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure and lower mortality than medical therapy alone. The goal for freedom from device-related complications was exceeded.

ObjectiveThe evidence for cardiac rehabilitation after valve surgery remains sparse. Current recommendations are therefore based on patients with ischaemic heart disease. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to assess the effects of cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care after heart valve surgery.MethodsThe trial was an investigator-initiated, randomised superiority trial (The CopenHeartVR trial, VR; valve replacement or repair). We randomised 147 patients after heart valve surgery 1:1 to 12 weeks of cardiac rehabilitation consisting of physical exercise and monthly psycho-educational consultations (intervention) versus usual care without structured physical exercise or psycho-educational consultations (control). Primary outcome was physical capacity measured by VO2 peak and secondary outcome was self-reported mental health measured by Short Form-36.Results76% were men, mean age 62 years, with aortic (62%), mitral (36%) or tricuspid/pulmonary valve surgery (2%). Cardiac rehabilitation compared with control had a beneficial effect on VO2 peak at 4 months (24.8 mL/kg/min vs 22.5 mL/kg/min, p=0.045) but did not affect Short Form-36 Mental Component Scale at 6 months (53.7 vs 55.2 points, p=0.40) or the exploratory physical and mental outcomes. Cardiac rehabilitation increased the occurrence of self-reported non-serious adverse events (11/72 vs 3/75, p=0.02).ConclusionsCardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery significantly improves VO2 peak at 4 months but has no effect on mental health and other measures of exercise capacity and self-reported outcomes. Further research is needed to justify cardiac rehabilitation in this patient group.Trial registration numberNCT01558765, Results.

Tricuspid valve repair, particularly with annuloplasty rings, is increasingly recognized as an effective treatment. PM-AR-T is a semi-rigid annuloplasty ring based on a nickel-titanium alloy which has made progress in animal models, however, studies on PM-AR-T's performance in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the PM-AR-T with the Edwards MC3 ring for the TR treatment. A non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 20 centers across China, enrolling patients with tricuspid valve disease requiring surgical repair. Patients were randomized to receive either PM-AR-T or Edwards MC3 ring. The primary endpoint was the success rate of valve repair at 6 months. A total of 164 patients underwent valve annuloplasty, 83 and 81 in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups. Valve repair success rates were 92.8% and 93.8% in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups, demonstrating non-inferiority with a difference of -1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.5 to 7.4), which was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. No significant intergroup differences were found in valve regurgitation, echocardiographic parameters, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification at any postoperative time point. At 12 months, the proportions of patients without regurgitation were comparable, 30.4% and 27.8% in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups (P = 0.705). Improvement to NYHA functional class I status was detected in 46.2% and 45.6% of the two groups by 12 months (P = 0.893). Both rings exhibited comparable safety profiles, with no device-related serious adverse events, cardiovascular deaths, major bleeding events, severe structural damage, infective endocarditis, or thromboembolic events. The PM-AR-T tricuspid valve semi-rigid ring is effective in improving TR, demonstrating non-inferiority to the Edwards MC3 ring, with a favorable safety profile. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100043007).

Current treatment recommendations for patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation include transcatheter edge-to-edge repair and mitral-valve surgery. Data from randomized trials comparing these therapies are lacking in this patient population. In this noninferiority trial conducted in Germany, patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation who continued to have symptoms despite guideline-directed medical therapy were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (intervention group) or surgical mitral-valve repair or replacement (surgery group). The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death, hospitalization for heart failure, mitral-valve reintervention, implantation of an assist device, or stroke within 1 year after the procedure. The primary safety end point was a composite of major adverse events within 30 days after the procedure. A total of 210 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 70.5±7.9 years, 39.9% were women, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 43.0±11.7%. Within 1 year, at least one of the components of the primary efficacy end point occurred in 16 of the 96 patients with available data (16.7%) in the intervention group and in 20 of the 89 with available data (22.5%) in the surgery group (estimated mean difference, -6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17 to 6; P<0.001 for noninferiority). A primary safety end-point event occurred in 15 of the 101 patients with available data (14.9%) in the intervention group and in 51 of the 93 patients with available data (54.8%) in the surgery group (estimated mean difference, -40 percentage points; 95% CI, -51 to -27; P<0.001). Among patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair was noninferior to mitral-valve surgery with respect to a composite of death, rehospitalization for heart failure, stroke, reintervention, or implantation of an assist device in the left ventricle at 1 year. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; MATTERHORN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02371512.).

•Sub-analyses of low-risk patients aged ≤70 years randomized to TAVI or SAVR.•Patients with tricuspid native aortic valve had similar risk of primary outcome.•Increased risk of the primary outcome in TAVI patients with bicuspid native aortic valve. This NOTION-2 sub-study revealed distinct outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low surgical risk patients aged ≤ 70 years with a tricuspid or bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (AS). One year after intervention, the risk of death, stroke or rehospitalization in patients with tricuspid AS was similar after TAVR when compared to SAVR (absolute risk difference: −2.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI): −11.8% to 7.7%) Conversely, in patients with bicuspid AS, TAVR was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse outcomes (absolute risk difference: 13.8%; 95% CI: 1.2% to 26.3%). These analyses are exploratory, but highlight the importance of tailoring the intervention to the patient's clinical risk profile, life expectancy, native aortic valve morphology and the anticipated risks associated with TAVR or SAVR.