Active clinical trials for "Heart Valve Diseases"

This is an adaptive Phase 2/3 multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel, 3 arm study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DA-1229 compared to placebo in patients with calcific aortic valve disease with mild to moderate aortic stenosis. There are 3 arms in this study to which patients will be randomized in a ratio of 1:1:1 to receive the DA-1229 or placebo orally once daily for a period of 104 weeks . the 3 arms are: placebo, DA-1229 5mg GroupDA-1229 10 mg Group. The study will have three phases: Screening Period (up to 4 weeks), Treatment Period (104 weeks), and Follow-Up Period (2-4 weeks). Total Study Duration is112 Weeks.

Pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Edwards EVOQUE tricuspid valve replacement system

This study aims to investigate the effect of transversus thoracis muscle plane block (TTP), using repeated boluses of ropivacaine via catheter, on postoperative pain and oxycodone consumption after elective cardiac surgery with sternotomy.

This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical study in patients with planned primary valvular surgery and comorbid coronary artery lesions with diameter stenosis of ≥ 50%, to compare the effectiveness of an Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR)-guided revascularization strategy and a coronary angiography (CAG)-guided revascularization strategy in preventing the incidence of composite outcome (MACE-5, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned coronary revascularization, and new renal failure requiring dialysis) within 30 days after surgery. The study hypothesis is that the QFR-guided strategy can reduce the incidence of the MACE-5 within 30 days after surgery, as compared with the CAG-guided strategy.

Prospective, multi-center study to assess safety and performance of the Edwards EVOQUE Tricuspid Valve Replacement System

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) serves a growing spectrum of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Approximately 80% of surgical aortic valve replacements is performed using a bioprosthesis1. Durability of surgical bioprostheses varies based on the patient's age at the moment of implantation, type and size etc2. TAVI has become the preferred treatment for degenerated aortic bioprostheses in elderly patients3. The median time since index surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and for bioprosthetic valve degeneration is typically 8 - 10 years4-6. TAVI in this setting has proven to have equally favorable results as in native aortic valves7. Balloon expandable8 and self-expanding9 transcatheter heart valves (THV) can be used in a degenerated bioprosthesis and each have specific assets and limitations. TAVI in a failed bioprosthesis can cause coronary obstruction, THV migration, paravalvular leakage and prosthesis patient mismatch. The SAPIEN-3 / Ultra and EVOLUT R/Pro are the 2 most commonly used THV platforms in contemporary clinical practice including treatment of failing surgical aortic bioprostheses. Objective: To compare TAVI with EVOLUT R/Pro vs. SAPIEN-3 / Ultra in terms of device success. Study design: International multi-center randomized study with 1:1 randomization to TAVI with SAPIEN-3 / Ultra or Evolut R/Pro. Study population: 440 patients with a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis (aortic stenosis with or without aortic regurgitation) and selected for transfemoral TAVI by heart-team consensus. Investigational intervention: Transfemoral TAVI with SAPIEN-3 / Ultra or Evolut R/PRO Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary endpoint is device success at 30 days Defined by Absence of procedural mortality AND Correct positioning of a single prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location AND Intended performance of the prosthetic heart valve (no severe prosthesis- patient mismatch and mean aortic valve gradient < 20 mmHg or peak velocity < 3 m/s, AND no moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation). Severe prosthesis patient mismatch is defined by effective orifice area (EOAi) ≤0.65 cm2/m2 Safety endpoint at 1 year defined by the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems.

Prospective, controlled, multicenter clinical investigation with four trial cohorts: Randomized, Non-repairable, Severe Mitral Annular Calcification (MAC) and Severe Mitral Annular Calcification Continued Access Protocol (MAC CAP). Subjects in the Randomized cohort will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the trial device or to the MitraClip system. Subjects in the Non-repairable, Severe MAC, and Severe MAC CAP cohorts will receive the trial device. The objective of the Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Using the Tendyne Transcatheter Mitral Valve System for the Treatment of Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation (SUMMIT) is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Tendyne Transcatheter Mitral Valve System for the treatment of patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe or severe mitral regurgitation or for patients with symptomatic mitral valve disease due to severe mitral annular calcification. This randomized controlled trial will provide the opportunity to evaluate the safety and clinical benefits of the Tendyne Transcatheter Mitral Valve System compared to the MitraClip System in patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe or severe mitral regurgitation, within approved MitraClip indications. In addition, the safety and effectiveness of the Tendyne Transcatheter Mitral Valve System will be evaluated in patients with severe mitral annular calcification who are at prohibitive risk for mitral valve surgery. Patients who are not suitable for mitral valve surgery for reasons other than severe mitral annular calcification and are also not suitable for transcatheter repair with MitraClip, will be enrolled in the Non-repairable cohort. Subjects will be seen at screening, pre- and post-procedure, discharge, 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and annually through 5 years.

A randomized clinical trial investigating transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement in patients 75 years of age or younger suffering from severe aortic valve stenosis. Study hypothesis: The clinical outcome (composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, MI and stroke) obtained within 1 year after TAVR is non-inferior to SAVR.

Background: Replacing a valve in the heart can save many people s lives. The procedure is called transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). In rare cases, a flap of tissue called a leaflet can shift during TAVR; the leaflet may block blood flow to the coronary arteries, which supply blood to the heart muscle. About 50% of people who experience this problem will die. To reduce this risk, doctors will cut this leaflet during TAVR. But the tools used to cut the leaflet were originally designed for other purposes. Using these tools during TAVR can be complicated and risky. Researchers want to make TAVR safer. Objective: To test a new device (TELLTALE) designed specifically for use during TAVR. Eligibility: People aged 21 years and older who are undergoing TAVR and who are at high risk of coronary artery obstruction. Design: Participants will be screened. They will have routine tests that are done before undergoing TAVR. Before the procedure, participants will complete a questionnaire. They will talk about how their heart disease affects their quality of life. Their physical abilities and their risk of stroke will be assessed. Participants will be admitted to the hospital for TAVR. They will be placed under general anesthesia or moderate sedation. The procedure will be performed using the TELLTALE guidewire system. Participants will repeat the tests of their physical abilities after the procedure. They will also repeat the questionnaire about their quality of life. These will be repeated again at a follow-up visit in 30 days. Participants will have a final study visit after 90 days. This visit may be in person or remote.

Patients undergoing cardiac robotic surgery will receive different pain management after being randomized in 2 groups. Control group will receive standard of care pain management with acetaminophen and morphine in PCA pump, and the intervention group will receive an erector spinae plane block with a continous infusion of local anesthetic. At 3 months the patients will be contacted to assess for pain and ask them for they life quality.