Long-Term Follow-Up of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Portico Versus Evolut Devices

Long-term outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Portico self-expanding valve

AIM

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a mainstay in the management of severe aortic valve stenosis in elderly patients, but there is uncertainty on their long-term effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term outcome of patients undergoing TAVI with the Portico valve.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected the data on patients in whom TAVI with Portico was attempted from 7 high-volume centres. Only patients theoretically eligible for 3 or more years of follow-up were included. Clinical outcomes, including death, stroke, myocardial infarction, reintervention for valve degeneration and hemodynamic valve performance were systematically assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients were included, with 504 (62.8%) women, mean age of 82 years, median EuroSCORE II of 3.1%, and 386 (48.1%) subjects at low/moderate risk. The median follow-up was 3.0 years (3.0; 4.0). The composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and reintervention for valve degeneration occurred in 37.5% (95% confidence interval: 34.1-40.9%), with all-cause death in 35.1% (31.8-38.4%), stroke in 3.4% (1.3-3.4%), myocardial infarction in 1.0% (0.3-1.5%), and reintervention for valve degeneration in 1.1% (0.6-2.1%). The mean aortic valve gradient at follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.6 mmHg, and at least moderate aortic regurgitation was present in 9.1% (6.7-12.3%). Independent predictors of major adverse events or death were: peripheral artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, atrial fibrillation, prior pacemaker implantation, EuroSCORE II, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Portico use is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes. Clinical outcomes were largely impacted by baseline risk factors and surgical risk.

Comparisons of different new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices for patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether there are differences among the new-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices for patients with aortic stenosis remains unclear. The aim of the study was to compare the efficiency and safety of different new-generation TAVI devices for patients with aortic stenosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from their inception to 1 February 2022. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies that compared two or more different TAVI devices were enroled. Pairwise meta-analysis and frequentist network meta-analysis were conducted to pool the outcome estimates of interest.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies were finally included. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking, the top two ranked valves for lower rates of events were as follows: direct flow medical (DFM) (4.6%) and Lotus (48.8%) for lower rate of device success; Sapien 3 (16.8%) and DFM (19.7%) for lower mortality; DFM (8.6%) and Sapien 3 (25.5%) for lower rates of stroke; Evolut (27.6%) and DFM (35.8%) for lower rates of major and life-threatening bleeding; Portico (22.6%) and Sapien 3 (41.9%) for lower rates of acute kidney injury; Acurate (8.6%) and DFM (13.2%) for lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation; Lotus (0.3%) and Sapien 3 (22.7%) for lower rates of paravalvular leak; Evolut (1.4%) and Portico (29.1%) for lower rates of mean aortic valve gradients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggested that the device success rates were comparable among these new-generation valves except for DFM. After excluding DFM, Sapien 3 might be the best effective for decreased mortality and stroke; Lotus might be the best effective for decreased paravalvular leak; Evolut might be the best effective for decreased major and life-threatening bleeding and mean aortic valve gradients; Acurate and Portico might be the best effective for decreased permanent pacemaker implantation and acute kidney injury, respectively.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the novel-generation Navitor device: Procedural and early outcomes

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has proved beneficial in patients with severe aortic stenosis, especially when second‐generation devices are used. We aimed at reporting our experience with Navitor, a third‐generation device characterized by intrannular, large cell, and cuffed design, as well as high deliverability and minimization of paravalvular leak. Between June and December 2021, a total of 39 patients underwent TAVI with Navitor, representing 20% of all TAVI cases. Mean age was 80.0 ± 6.7 years, and 14 (36.8%) women were included. Severe aortic stenosis was the most common indication to TAVI (37 [97.4%] cases), whereas 2 (5.3%) individuals were at low surgical risk. Device and procedural success was obtained in all patients, with a total hospital stay of 6.6 ± 4.5 days. One (2.9%) patient required permanent pacemaker implantation, but no other hospital events occurred. At 1‐month follow‐up, a cardiac death was adjudicated in an 87‐year‐old man who had been at high surgical risk. Echocardiographic follow‐up showed no case of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, with mild regurgitation in 18 (47%), and none or trace regurgitation in 20 (53%). The Navitor device, thanks to its unique features, is a very promising technology suitable to further expand indications and risk‐benefit profile of TAVI.

Baseline, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to different body mass index categories

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become first-line treatment for severe aortic valve stenosis in patients with moderate, high or prohibitive surgical risk. However, access site complications may occur more frequently in extreme body mass index (BMI) categories. The aim of this study was to describe the features and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI in a comprehensive Italian prospective clinical registry, focusing on BMI classes.

METHODS

A national prospective database was queried for baseline, procedural, and outcome details of patients undergoing TAVI according to established BMI categories: underweight (BMI <18.5 kg/m²), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m²), and obese (BMI≥30 kg/m²). Short- and long-term outcomes, including major adverse events (MAE), i.e. the composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complication, major bleeding, or renal failure, were appraised with bivariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 3075 subjects were included, 64 (2.1%) were underweight, 1319 (42.9%) were normal weight, 1152 (37.4%) were overweight, and 540 (17.6%) were obese. Several baseline differences were evident, including gender, diabetes mellitus, renal function, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, surgical scores, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (all P<0.05). Several procedural differences were also evident, including percutaneous approach, predilation, prosthesis type and size (all P<0.05), with postprocedural aortic regurgitation >2+ significantly more common in underweight patients (P<0.05). Nonetheless, unadjusted analysis for one-month outcomes showed similar rates for fatal and non-fatal outcomes, including MAE (all P>0.05), with the notable exception of permanent pacemaker implantation, which was more common in higher BMI classes (P=0.010) Unadjusted analysis for long-term events showed an increased rate of death in underweight patients (P=0.024). Multivariable adjusted analysis confirmed the increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation in obese patients (P=0.015 when comparing obese vs. normal weight subjects), but disproved differences in long-term mortality and other outcomes (P>0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of BMI class, TAVI is associated with favorable outcomes in surgical high-risk risk patients, with the notable exclusion of permanent pacemaker implantation, which is significantly more common in obese subjects.