First-in-Human Multicenter Experience of the Newest Generation Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Evolut FX TAVR System

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Third-Generation Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: A Meta-analysis

Background

The choice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prosthesis is crucial in optimizing short- and long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of third-generation balloon-expandable valves (BEV) vs self-expanding valves (SEV).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2023 for studies comparing third-generation BEV vs SEV. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical and hemodynamic end points. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs).

Results

The meta-analysis included 16 studies and 10,174 patients (BEV, 5753 and SEV, 4421). There were no significant differences in 1-year all-cause mortality (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.48) between third-generation BEV vs SEV. TAVR with third generation BEV was associated with a significantly lower risk of TIA/stroke (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.87), permanent pacemaker implantation (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.70), and ≥moderate paravalvular leak (PVL, OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.75), and higher risk of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 2.33-6.05), higher mean gradient (WMD, 4.35; 95% CI, 3.63-5.08), and smaller effective orifice area (WMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.23), compared with SEV.

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, TAVR with third-generation BEV vs SEV was associated with similar all-cause mortality, lower risk of TIA/stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, and ≥moderate PVL, but higher risk of ≥moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch, higher mean gradient, and smaller effective orifice area. Large, adequately powered randomized trials are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR with latest generations of BEV vs SEV.

Safety and effectiveness of the novel Myval Octacor transcatheter heart valve in severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis - A real-world Indian experience (The OCTACOR India Study)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the novel, next-generation Myval Octacor - Transcatheter Heart Valve (THV) in patients with severe, symptomatic, native aortic stenosis (AS).

METHODS

This multicenter, real-world observational registry included 123 patients with severe symptomatic AS, across 16 Indian centers who underwent treatment with the novel Myval Octacor THV. Study endpoints included all-cause mortality, all stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complications, moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) until 30 days follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 123 patients (average age 70.07 ± 8.33 years), 37.4 % (n = 46) were female and 39.84 % presented with bicuspid valves. The technical success rate of the procedure was 100 % and the device success rate at 30 days was 98.4 %. At 30 days (n = 123) after the procedure, the overall mortality was 1.6 %. AKI occurred in 1.6 % of patients and there was no incidence of stroke, bleeding (types 3 and 4), and major vascular complications. In an analysis of 31 patients whose echocardiographic parameters were available across all timepoints, there were significant improvements in the mean pressure gradient (54.31 ± 18.19 mmHg vs. 10.42 ± 4.24 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and effective orifice area (0.66 ± 0.21 cm2 vs. 1.80 ± 0.44 cm2; p < 0.0001) from baseline to the 30-day follow-up. None of the patients experienced severe PVL, while moderate PVL was observed in two patients (1.6 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Early outcomes of the next-generation, novel Myval Octacor THV proved its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of severe AS.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR.

METHODS

Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR.

RESULTS

There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

Predictors, clinical impact, and management strategies for conduction abnormalities after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increasingly become a safe, feasible, and widely accepted alternative surgical treatment for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. However, the incidence of conduction abnormalities associated with TAVR, including left bundle branch block (LBBB) and high-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB), remains high and is often correlated with risk factors such as the severity of valvular calcification, preexisting conditions in patients, and procedural factors. The existing research results on the impact of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities and permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirements on prognosis, including all-cause mortality and rehospitalization, remain contradictory, with varied management strategies for post-TAVR conduction system diseases across different institutions. This review integrates the latest research in the field, offering a comprehensive discussion of the mechanisms, risk factors, consequences, and management of post-TAVR conduction abnormalities. This study provides insights into optimizing patient prognosis and explores the potential of novel strategies, such as conduction system pacing, to minimize the risk of adverse clinical outcomes.

Use and performance of the evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve system

BACKGROUND

The next generation supra-annular, self-expanding Evolut FX transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) system was designed to improve catheter deliverability, provide stable and symmetric valve deployment, and assess commissural alignment during the procedure. The impact of these modifications has not been clinically evaluated.

METHODS

Procedural information was collected by survey in 2 Stages: Stage I comprised 23 centers with extensive experience with Evolut TAV systems, and Stage II comprised an additional 46 centers with a broad range of balloon- and self-expanding system experience. Operators were to compare the experience with the Evolut FX to the predicate Evolut PRO+ system.

RESULTS

There were 285 cases during Stage I from June 24 to August 12, 2022, and 254 cases during Stage II from August 15 to September 11, 2022. Overall, the cusp overlap technique was used in 88.6 %, and commissural alignment was achieved in 96.1 % of these cases. Compared to implanter's previous experience with the Evolut PRO+ system, less resistance was noted with the Evolut FX system: in 83.0 % of cases during vascular insertion, in 84.7 % of cases while tracking through the vasculature, in 84.4 % of cases while traversing over the arch, and 76.1 % of cases in advancing across the valve. Better symmetry of valve depth was observed in 423 of 525 cases (80.6 %).

CONCLUSION

Evolut FX system design modifications translated into improvements in catheter deliverability, deployment symmetry and stability, and commissural alignment as assessed by experienced self-expanding and balloon expandable operators.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Status and Future Indications

In the past two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has transformed the management of aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care regardless of surgical risk levels. Advances in transcatheter valve design across newer generations, improved imaging, greater operator expertise, and technical enhancements have collectively contributed to increased safety and a decline in procedural complications over this timeframe. The application of TAVR has progressively expanded to include younger patients with lower risks, who have longer life expectancies. This article offers an up-to-date review of the latest innovations in transcatheter delivery systems, devices, and its possible future indications.

Feasibility of Coronary Access Following Redo-TAVR for Evolut Failure: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study

BACKGROUND

Coronary accessibility following redo-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (redo-TAVR) is increasingly important, particularly in younger low-risk patients. This study aimed to predict coronary accessibility after simulated Sapien-3 balloon-expandable valve implantation within an Evolut supra-annular, self-expanding valve using pre-TAVR computed tomography (CT) imaging.

METHODS

A total of 219 pre-TAVR CT scans from the Evolut Low-Risk CT substudy were analyzed. Virtual Evolut and Sapien-3 valves were sized using CT-based diameters. Two initial Evolut implant depths were analyzed, 3 and 5 mm. Coronary accessibility was evaluated for 2 Sapien-3 in Evolut implant positions: Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 and Evolut node 5.

RESULTS

With a 3-mm initial Evolut implant depth, suitable coronary access was predicted in 84% of patients with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4, and in 31% of cases with the Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 5 (P<0.001). Coronary accessibility improved with a 5-mm Evolut implant depth: 97% at node 4 and 65% at node 5 (P<0.001). When comparing 3- to 5-mm Evolut implant depth, sinus sequestration was the lowest with Sapien-3 outflow at Evolut node 4 (13% versus 2%; P<0.001), and the highest at Evolut node 5 (61% versus 32%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary accessibility after Sapien-3 in Evolut redo-TAVR relates to the initial Evolut implant depth, the Sapien-3 outflow position within the Evolut, and the native annular anatomy. This CT-based quantitative analysis may provide useful information to inform and refine individualized preprocedural CT planning of the initial TAVR and guide lifetime management for future coronary access after redo-TAVR.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02701283.