BACKGROUND: Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a life-threatening complication. For patients at elevated risk, it is not known how valve choice is influenced by clinical and anatomic factors and how outcomes differ between valve platforms. For patients at high risk of coronary obstruction, we sought to describe the anatomical and clinical characteristics of patients treated with both balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) valves. METHODS: This was a multicenter international registry of patients undergoing TAVR who are considered to be at high risk of coronary obstruction and receiving pre-emptive coronary protection. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were included. Patients receiving SE valves were more likely to undergo valve-in-valve procedures and also had smaller sinuses of Valsalva and valve-to-coronary distance. Three-year cardiac mortality was 21.6% with SE vs 3.7% with BE valves. This was primarily driven by increased rates of definite or probable coronary occlusion, which occurred in 12.1% of patients with SE valves vs 2.1% in patients with BE valves. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR with coronary protection, those treated with SE valves had increased rates of clinical and anatomic features that increase the risk of coronary obstruction. These include an increased frequency of valve-in-valve procedures, smaller sinuses of Valsalva, and smaller valve-to-coronary distances. These patients were observed to have increased cardiac mortality compared with patients treated with BE valves, but this is likely due to their higher risk clinical and anatomic phenotypes rather than as a function of the valve type itself.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, comprising over 47 000 patient-years of placebo-controlled observation, demonstrated important reductions in the risk of recurrent ischaemic cardiovascular events with the monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 alirocumab, as well as lower all-cause death. These benefits were observed in the context of substantial and persistent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with alirocumab compared with that achieved with placebo. The safety profile of alirocumab was indistinguishable from matching placebo except for a ∼1.7% absolute increase in local injection site reactions. Further, the safety of alirocumab compared with placebo was evident in vulnerable groups identified before randomization, such as the elderly and those with diabetes mellitus, previous ischaemic stroke, or chronic kidney disease. The frequency of adverse events and laboratory-based abnormalities was generally similar to that in placebo-treated patients. Thus, alirocumab appears to be a safe and effective lipid-modifying treatment over a duration of at least 5 years.