Clinical and procedural outcomes with the SAPIEN 3 versus the SAPIEN XT prosthetic valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

National trends in utilization of transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement and postoperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement reduces complexity during mitral valve replacements involving high-risk patients with mitral annular calcification. This study examines trends in transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement use and outcomes.

METHODS

Patients in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database from 2014 to 2021 with mitral annular calcification undergoing transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement were included. Exclusion criteria were hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, congenital mitral valve disease, ventricular assist device placement, or prior mitral valve surgery. Primary outcomes were operative mortality and major adverse cardiac events compared between the Early (2014-2017, N = 71) and Recent (2018-2021, N = 151) eras. Parsimonious multivariable regression assessed select possible confounders for trends in major adverse cardiac events.

RESULTS

Overall, 222 transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacements at 104 hospitals were identified. Annual volume increased from 6 in 2014 to 43 in 2021. Median hospital volume was 1, maximum hospital volume was 17, and 10 or more replacements were performed at 4 hospitals. Mortality and major adverse cardiac events occurred in 10.4% and 22.5% of patients, respectively. Compared with the Early era patients, Recent era patients were more often elective (79.5% vs 64.8%) and were approached via sternotomy (90.1% vs 80.3%, all P < .05). Despite similar predicted risk of mortality (9.6% ± 11.1% vs 11.0% ± 6.0%; P = .61), Recent patients had reduced mortality (3.3% vs 25.4%, P < .001) and major adverse cardiac events (18.5% vs 31.0%; P = .057). On univariate and multivariable analyses, the Recent surgical era was significantly associated with lower mortality (0.10 [0.04-0.29]; P < .001) and lower major adverse cardiac events (0.48 [0.25-0.94]; P = .032), respectively. There were no preoperative characteristics that were significant confounders for the difference in major adverse cardiac events.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality and major adverse cardiac events after transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement have decreased significantly in the contemporary era independent of changes in major patient and operative characteristics. Transatrial transcatheter mitral valve replacement will have a future role in patients with mitral annular calcification.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implant in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter aortic valve implant has become a widely accepted treatment for inoperable patients with aortic stenosis and patients at high surgical risk. Its indications have recently been expanded to include patients at intermediate and low surgical risk. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency of SAPIEN 3 vs conservative medical treatment (CMT) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic inoperable patients at high or intermediate risk.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of SAPIEN 3 vs SAVR/CMT, using a Markov model (monthly cycles) with 8 states defined by the New York Heart Association and a time horizon of 15 years, including major complications and management after hospital discharge, from the perspective of the National Health System. Effectiveness parameters were based on the PARTNER trials. Costs related to the procedure, hospitalization, complications, and follow-up were included (euros in 2019). An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and benefits. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (Monte Carlo) were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with SAVR (high and intermediate risk) and CMT (inoperable), SAPIEN 3 showed better clinical results in the 3 populations and lower hospital stay. Incremental cost-utility ratios (€/quality-adjusted life years gained) were 5471 (high risk), 8119 (intermediate risk) and 9948 (inoperable), respectively. In the probabilistic analysis, SAPIEN 3 was cost-effective in more than 75% of the simulations in the 3 profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In our health system, SAPIEN 3 facilitates efficient management of severe aortic stenosis in inoperable and high- and intermediate-risk patients.

A Real-World Comparison of 1-Year Survival and Expenditures for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements: SAPIEN 3 Versus CoreValve Versus Evolut R

OBJECTIVES

New versions of balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been developed, but few studies have examined the outcomes associated with these devices using national-level data. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical and economic outcomes of TAVR for aortic stenosis in Japan through an analysis of real-world data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed using data from patients with aortic stenosis who had undergone transfemoral TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN 3, Medtronic CoreValve, or Medtronic Evolut R valves throughout Japan from April 2016 to March 2018. Pacemaker implantation, mortality, and health expenditure were examined for each valve type during hospitalization and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Generalized linear regression models and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the associations between the valve types and outcomes.

RESULTS

We analyzed 7244 TAVR cases (SAPIEN 3: 5276, CoreValve: 418, and Evolut R: 1550) across 145 hospitals. The adjusted 1-year expenditures for SAPIEN 3, CoreValve, and Evolut R were $79 402, $76 125, and $75 527, respectively; SAPIEN 3 was significantly more expensive than the other valves (P < .05). The pacemaker implantation hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for CoreValve and Evolut R were significantly higher (P < .001) than SAPIEN 3 at 2.61 (2.07-3.27) and 1.80 (1.53-2.12), respectively. The mortality hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for CoreValve and Evolut R were not significant at 1.11 (0.84-1.46) and 1.22 (0.97-1.54), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPIEN 3 users had generally lower pacemaker implantation and mortality but higher expenditures than CoreValve and Evolut R users.

Hemodynamic performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance

BACKGROUND

Scarce data exist on transcatheter heart valve (THV) performance evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in newer generation THV patients. Furthermore, it has been suggested that echocardiographic evaluation after TAVR may inaccurately assess residual AR in some patients. This study aimed to determine the incidence and severity of aortic regurgitation (AR) assessed by CMR in patients undergoing TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve, and evaluate the agreement between CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) on the assessment of AR severity in such patients.

METHODS

This multicentric observational study included 146 SAPIEN 3 patients with TTE and CMR within the month following their procedure. According to the CMR regurgitation fraction (RF), AR was considered mild and moderate-severe if the RF was 15-<30% and ≥ 30%, respectively. TTE exams followed VARC-2 recommendations.

RESULTS

By CMR, SAPIEN 3 recipients displayed a mean RF of 5.0 ± 6.1%, and mild and moderate-severe AR rates of 3.4% and 0.7%, respectively. The agreement between CMR-TTE was modest (weighted κ = 0.2640, p<0.001), due to an overestimation of AR severity by TTE. A historical cohort of 139 SAPIEN XT patients with a post-procedure CMR, displayed a mean RF of 9.6 ± 10.7% and mild and moderate-severe AR rates of 18.7% and 3.6%, respectively (p < .001 vs. SAPIEN 3 group).

CONCLUSIONS

SAPIEN 3 recipients exhibited very low rates of residual AR by CMR, suggesting a surgical-like performance regarding AR with this newer generation THV. TTE tended to overestimate the severity of AR, particularly among mild AR patients.

Effect of procedural refinement of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation on outcomes and costs: a single-centre retrospective study

Objectives

To determine the effect of introducing several procedural refinements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on clinical outcomes and costs.

Design

Retrospective analysis comparing two consecutive 1-year periods, before and after the introduction of procedural refinements.

Setting

Tertiary hospital aortic valve programme.

Participants

Consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI treated between April 2014 and August 2015 using the initial setup (n=70; control group) or between September 2015 and August 2016 after the introduction of procedural refinements (n=89).

Interventions

Introduction of conscious sedation, percutaneous access and closure, omission of transoesophageal echocardiography during the procedure, and an early discharge procedure.

Outcome measures

Procedural characteristics, complications and outcomes; length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital; hospital-related direct costs associated with TAVI.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications or mortality between the two groups. The mean length of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter in the procedural-refinement group compared with the control group (5.1 vs 57.2 hours, p<0.001), as was the mean length of hospital stay (4.7 vs 6.6 days, p<0.001). The total cost per TAVI procedure was significantly lower, by £3580, in the procedural-refinement group (p<0.001). This was largely driven by lower ICU costs.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, procedural refinement facilitated a shorter stay in ICU and earlier discharge from hospital and was cost saving compared with the previous setup.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the SAPIEN 3 TAVI valve compared with surgery in intermediate-risk patients

OBJECTIVE

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the therapy of choice for treating severe aortic stenosis in patients at high-risk for surgery or where it is considered too risky to attempt. This uptake varies across geographies however, and its cost or value has frequently been cited as the reason for this. We sought to evaluate the potential cost and clinical impact of TAVI in intermediate risk patients from a French collective perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis was performed using a novel Markov model with data derived from the PARTNER II randomized controlled trial for survival, clinical event rates, and quality-of-life. The simulated time horizon was 15 years, costs were from French sources and presented in 2016 Euros. Discounting of all outcomes was at 4% annually and the effect of uncertainty in model parameters was explored by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

In comparison to surgery, TAVI resulted in improved clinical outcomes (life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy) and lower costs over a lifetime time horizon. The base case results showed increases of 0.42 years and 0.41 QALYs with lifetime cost savings of €439 for TAVI compared to surgery. PSA results showed a >50% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at €0 willingness-to-pay and a 100% likelihood at ∼€15,000.

LIMITATIONS

Clinically, survival projections are based on limited follow-up data and introduce uncertainty into the outcomes from the model. Economically, procedure costs are derived from a heterogeneous mix of patient risk groups, although this is much more likely to bias against TAVI and under-estimate overall cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

In our analyses of intermediate risk patients, TAVI is associated with superior clinical outcomes compared to surgery and is cost saving. It could be expected that cost savings are conservative and likely to increase over time.

Correlation Between Aortic Angulation and Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With New-Generation Valves

The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of aortic angulation (AA) on immediate postprocedural and long-term outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation valves. There is limited and conflicting data on the impact of AA on short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR. Available studies to date were done with first-generation valves. We assessed 179 patients who underwent TAVR with either a balloon-expandable or self-expandable valve at our institute from May 2014 to June 2017 and had multislice computed tomography scans available for AA evaluation. All included patients received a second- or third-generation valve. TAVR endpoints, device success, and adverse events were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The mean AA of the study population was 49.05 ± 10.07. Patients were divided into 2 groups: AA <49 and AA ≥49, and then further subdivided by valve type. There were no difference in mean age, The Society for Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, or race distribution between the AA <49 and AA ≥49 groups. The preimplantation balloon valvuloplasty rate was higher in patients with AA ≥ 49 compared to patients with AA <49, (70% vs 55.1%, P = 0.04). There was no difference in re-hospitalization, pacemaker implantation, postprocedural aortic regurgitation or mortality between patients with AA <49 and AA ≥49 irrespective of valve type (P < 0.05). AA does not significantly affect short- or long-term outcomes in patients who undergo TAVR with new-generation balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves.

Comprehensive update on the new indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the latest 2017 European guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease

New European guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease—supported by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association of CardioThoracic Surgery (EACTS)—were recently published. Although these guidelines are very comprehensive, these typically are not very inviting to read. In this document, we aimed to distil all the information about transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the new 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines to the essential and give additional comments on the position of TAVR in 2017.