Clinical outcomes of self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable TAVI for severe aortic stenosis

Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment than surgery for severe aortic stenosis. However, its use is restricted by the fact that many patients eventually require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). This meta-analysis was performed to identify predictors of post-TAVR PPMI.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the pooling analysis after quality assessment.

RESULTS

After pooling 67 studies on post-TAVR PPMI risk in 97,294 patients, balloon-expandable valve use was negatively correlated with PPMI risk compared with self-expandable valve (SEV) use (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53). Meta-regression analysis revealed that history of coronary artery bypass grafting and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score increased the risk of PPMI with SEV utilization. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormalities in 28 pooled studies also had a higher risk of PPMI (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.90-2.86). Right bundle branch block (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.37-6.18) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) also increased PPMI risk. Although the trans-femoral approach was positively correlated with PPMI risk, the trans-apical pathway showed no statistical difference to the trans-femoral pathway. The approach did not increase PPMI risk in patients with STS scores >8. Patient-prosthesis mismatch did not influence post-TAVR PPMI risk (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.67-1.16). We also analyzed implantation depth and found no difference between patients with PPMI after TAVR and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

SEV selection, pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormality, and trans-femoral pathway selection are positively correlated with PPMI after TAVR. Pre-existing left bundle branch block, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and implantation depth did not affect the risk of PPMI after TAVR.

Evaluation of Acquired Thrombocytopenia According to the Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Valves in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, the data about the incidence of acquired thrombocytopenia according to the use of balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves are limited. We investigated the relationship between the post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) thrombocytopenia and the balloon-expandable or self-expandable valves. A total of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR were retrospectively analyzed. Among the study population, 61 (48%) patients underwent TAVR with the balloon-expandable valve and the 66 (52%) patients with the self-expandable valve. Procedural success did not differ between the groups (P = .575). The access site complications and in-hospital mortality were the same across the groups (P = .225 and P = .466). However, paravalvular (PV) leaks were significantly higher in the self-expandable valve group (P = .007). Among all, 65 patients experienced thrombocytopenia, which was more frequent in the self-expandable valve group (63.6 vs 37.7%, P = .005). In multivariate analyses, admission platelet count, PV leak, and self-expandable valve deployment were the predictors of thrombocytopenia (P = .001, P = .002, and P = .021, respectively). The present study showed a higher incidence of acquired thrombocytopenia in the self-expandable valve group. Although the procedural success was similar between the groups, postprocedural PV leaks were more common in the self-expandable valve group.

Safety and efficacy of self-expandable Evolut R vs. balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to systematically search literature and conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of Evolut R and Sapien 3 valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The PubMed, Biomed Central, Scopus, Cochrane library and Google scholar databases were searched for articles published up to June, 2019. A total of 5 studies were included. In total, 795 patients underwent TAVI with Evolut R, while 665 patients received the Sapien 3 valve in the included studies. Overall device success with Evolut R was 95.7% and with Sapien 3 was 94.2%. Pooled data indicated no significant differences between the 2 valves (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.66–1.89; P=0.68; I²=0%). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of none to mild paravalvular leakage between the 2 groups (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.83–3.54; P=0.14; I²=0%). Both mean [random; mean difference (MD) = −3.96; 95% CI, −4.61 to −3.31; P<0.00001, I²=0%] and peak (random; MD = −6.85; 95% CI, −8.22 to −5.48; P<0.00001, I²=0%) aortic valve gradients were significantly lower with Evolut R. No significant differences were observed in the 30-day mortality (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.45–3.87; P=0.62; I²=0%) or 30-day stroke outcomes (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.32–1.81; P=0.54; I²=0%) between the 2 devices. On the whole, the findings of this study indicate that Evolut R and Sapien 3 valves may be comparable in terms of device success and short-term complications. The differences between the 2 devices for post-operative moderate to severe paravalvular leak and permanent pacemaker implantation remain unclear. There is thus a need for a large multi-center randomized controlled trial to provide stronger evidence on this subject.