Real‐world comparison of the new 34 mm self‐expandable transcatheter aortic prosthesis Evolut R to its 31 mm core valve predecessor

Procedural outcomes of the 34 mm EvolutR Transcatheter valve in a real-world population insights from the HORSE multicenter collaborative registry

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of real-world patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the 34 mm Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota).

BACKGROUND

Larger aortic annulus has been associated with increased incidence of paravalvular leaks (PVLs) after TAVR. However, little is known, so far, about the performance of the 34 mm Evolut R in this setting.

METHODS

From the multicenter, international, retrospective Horizontal Aorta in Transcatheter Self-expanding Valves (HORSE) registry, including patients who underwent TAVR for native severe AS, we selected patients treated with the 34 mm Evolut R evaluating procedural characteristics and VARC-2 defined device success. We also compared 34 mm Evolut R with other Evolut R sizes.

RESULTS

Among the 4434 patients included in the registry, 572 (13%) received the 34 mm Evolut R valve. Mean age was 80.8 ± 6.5 years and the median STS PROM score was 4 [interquartile range 2-6]. Device success was achieved in 87.4% with 7.7% of PVLs; moreover, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) was 22.4%. Patients who underwent 34 mm Evolut R implantation experienced more in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation (22.4% vs. 15%; p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, 34 mm Evolut R did not affect device success (OR: 0.81 [0.60-1.09]; p = 0.151). Device success was consistent with other THVs sizes (87.4% vs. 89.6%; p = 0.157).

CONCLUSIONS

THV replacement in patients requiring 34 mm Evolut R has an acceptable performance. Compared to other Medtronic sizes it demonstrated to be comparable in terms of device success, despite an increased rate of pacemaker implantation.

Early clinical and procedural outcomes in large series of 34-mm self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate early clinical and procedural outcomes with the 34-mm Evolut R transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prosthesis.

BACKGROUND

The 34-mm Evolut R (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) self-expanding TAVR prosthesis was designed to treat patients with larger annuli.

METHODS

Clinical, demographic, procedural, and echocardiographic data on consecutive patients who underwent TAVR with a 34-mm Evolut R prosthesis at our institution were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-six patients underwent TAVR with this prosthesis from November 2016 to July 2018, a majority (n = 188, 96%) through transfemoral access and with conscious sedation (n = 182, 93%). Mean age, Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score, and follow-up were 82 ± 8 years, 5.4 ± 5%, and 8.2 ± 5.3 months, respectively. Mean aortic valve (AV) peak velocity was 4.0 ± 0.6 m/s, mean AV gradient was 38 ± 13 mmHg, AV area was 0.79 ± 0.23 cm² ; calcium score was 3,503 ± 1,970 Agatston units, and perimeter was 85 ± 4.3 mm. Device implantation was successful in all but one patient. Postprocedure mean AV peak velocity, AV mean gradient, and AV area were 1.9 ± 0.4 m/s, 7 ± 3 mmHg, and 2.6 ± 0.7 cm² , respectively. New pacemaker requirement rate was 16%, and moderate paravalvular leak was present in six patients (3%), which improved to mild in three patients at 6-month follow-up. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 12-month survival rates were 98%, 96% (hospital discharge), 96% (30-day), 89% (6-month), and 83% (12-month).

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate high success and good procedural, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes of 34-mm Evolut R in patients with large annuli.

Comparison of Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With 31-mm CoreValve Versus 34-mm Evolut R Bioprostheses from the STS/ACC TVT Registry

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a bioprosthetic valve of insufficient size is associated with a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (AR). The 31-mm CoreValve and the next generation 34-mm Evolut R bioprostheses were designed to address the need for larger diameter aortic annuli. This analysis examined the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes following commercial transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the 31-mm CoreValve and 34-mm Evolut R in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients receiving a 31-mm CoreValve or 34-mm Evolut R valve for symptomatic severe native aortic stenosis from January 2014 to September 2017 in the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry underwent propensity score matching using baseline demographics, clinical and frailty measures, and procedural variables. Procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were compared. Of 4545 patients implanted with a 31-mm CoreValve and 3036 patients with a 34-mm Evolut R valve, matching resulted in 1813 patient sets. Most patients were male (>92%), elderly (∼80 years) with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 6.6%. Use of the 34-mm versus 31-mm valve resulted in shorter median procedural time (113.0 [85.0, 150.0] vs 93.0 [71.0, 126.0] min, p <0.001), higher device success (98.1% vs 93.9%, p <0.001), fewer pacemakers (16.7% vs 24.6%, p <0.001), less ≥moderate AR with the 34-mm (5.5% vs 13.7%), p <0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.0 [2.0, 4.0] vs 4.0 [3.0, 6.0] days, p <0.001). In conclusion, this largest experience with the 34-mm Evolut R valve showed higher device success, reduced hospital stay, lower pacemaker rates and less ≥moderate AR compared with the 31-mm CoreValve bioprosthesis.

Network meta-analysis of new-generation valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

To comprehensively compare and rank new-generation valves (NGVs) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of all eligible comparative studies. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through September 2018. We included all studies comparing 4 NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3) and an early generation valve (CoreValve) as the reference transcatheter heart valve (THV) each other and reporting at least one of postprocedural incidence of all-cause death, ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation (AR), and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI). To compare different THVs, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood NMA based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. Using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each THV was estimated and the hierarchy of competing THVs was obtained. We identified 29 eligible studies enrolling a total of 17,817 patients. In accordance with the estimated SUCRA probability, SAPIEN 3 was the best effective for a reduction in death (80.6%) and the second best for decreased ≥ moderate AR (74.4%) and PMI (74.1%) compared with the other THVs. Lotus was ranked the best for a reduction in ≥ moderate AR (94.5%;), whereas the worst for decreased PMI (1.2%) and the second worst for a reduction in mortality (38.6%). ACURATE was the best for decreased PMI (99.2%) and the second best for a reduction in mortality (77.9%). As a whole, SAPIEN 3 may be the best effective NGV among the 4 examined NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3).