Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new Evolut-Pro system: a prospective comparison with the Evolut-R device

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement achieves similar predicted effective orifice area to surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR) for patients with trileaflet aortic stenosis (AS) have found similar or larger effective orifice area (EOA) for TAVR prostheses. To our knowledge, no studies have compared EOA in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR for bicuspid AS.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared prosthetic valvular sizing and predicted EOA for patients with bicuspid AS undergoing TAVR or SAVR at our institution between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. We excluded patients undergoing procedures for indications other than AS and those without a pre-procedural gated Chest CT. Comparisons included demographics, comorbidities, annular size, prosthetic valve size, predicted EOA and prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) for TAVR (N = 78) and SAVR (N = 74) cohorts.

RESULTS

TAVR patients had smaller pre-procedural annular area (501.7 mm2 vs. 571.8 mm2, p < 0.05) and annular perimeter (80.6 mm vs. 86.5 mm, p < 0.05), but larger mean implanted prosthetic valve size (26.4 mm vs 24.2 mm, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR patients. No differences were observed in predicted EOA, predicted EOA indexed to patient body surface area (EOAi), or predicted PPM grade between TAVR and SAVR groups, including in cohorts sorted by pre-procedural annular size.

CONCLUSIONS

For bicuspid AS patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, TAVR achieves similar predicted EOA to SAVR. These data support the use of TAVR in selected patients with bicuspid AS and can inform heart team discussions.

Early experience with the Evolut FX self-expanding valve vs. Evolut PRO+ for patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR

BACKGROUND

The Evolut FX system is the most recent generation of self-expandable transcatheter heart valve (THV) technology. This study aims to report the early experience and outcomes associated with this system.

METHODS

Our analysis included 200 consecutive patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement at our center from 2022 to 2023. The first cohort comprised the last 100 patients who received the Evolut PRO+ THV, while the second cohort included the first 100 patients who received the Evolut FX THV. The primary endpoints of the study were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria, which included technical success (at exit from procedure), device success (at discharge or at 30 days), and early safety (at 30 days).

RESULTS

The study groups demonstrated no significant differences in baseline characteristics, including co-morbidities, pre-procedural imaging, and echocardiography. VARC-3 technical success rate was 99 % for both valves. The VARC-3 device success rate for the Evolut FX was 92 % compared to 97 % for the Evolut PRO+ (p = 0.12), and VARC-3 early safety rate was 80.1 % for the Evolut PRO+ vs. 81.5 % for the Evolut FX (p = 0.82). The in-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation rate for the Evolut FX was 12 % compared to 9 % for the Evolut PRO+ (p = 0.21). There were no differences in clinical outcomes, such as mortality or stroke, between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Evolut FX THV performed well when used for patients with severe aortic stenosis, demonstrating high success with low complication rates when compared to an earlier generation of self-expanding THV.

Evolut PRO/PRO+ versus Evolut R system for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

The self-expanding CoreValve Evolut PRO/PRO+ transcatheter aortic valve was designed to overcome the limitations of its forerunner, Evolut R. Evolut PRO/PRO+ offers the lowest delivery profile for 23-29 mm valves, with an external tissue wrap on all valve sizes. We compared safety and efficacy of Evolut PRO/PRO+ and Evolut R.

METHODS

We analyzed 300 patients enrolled in the EPROMPT Registry against a historical control cohort of 242 patients who received Evolut R. The two arms were matched (1:1) via propensity-score methodology by accounting for differences in Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality scores, yielding 440 patients. The endpoints included in-hospital safety clinical outcomes, all-cause mortality, and echocardiographic parameters at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

After propensity-score matching, cardiac death (0.5% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.995), stroke (1.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.410), life-threatening bleeding (1.1% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.139), major vascular complications (0.5% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.653), and pacemaker implantation (16.9% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.345) were comparable between the Evolut PRO/PRO+ and Evolut R groups. Likewise, the rates of all-cause mortality were similar both at 30 days (0.5% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.315) and 1 year (1.8% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.159). The rates of moderate paravalvular leak (5.7% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.402), and mean gradient (7.27 ± 3.25 mmHg vs. 8.84 ± 4.36 mmHg, p = 0.105) were also comparable between groups at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Our largest-to-date observational study suggests that the Evolut PRO/PRO+ system is safe and effective in treating severe aortic stenosis, with commensurate 30-day and 1-year mortality and similar 1-year echocardiographic hemodynamic outcomes in comparison to Evolut R.

Gender Disparities after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have demonstrated gender disparities in mortality and vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with early generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs). It is unclear, however, whether gender-related differences persist with the newer generation THVs. We aim to assess gender disparities after TAVR with newer generation THVs. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were thoroughly searched from inception to April 2023 to identify studies that reported gender-specific outcomes after TAVR with newer generation THVs (Sapien 3, Corevalve Evolut R, and Evolut Pro). The outcomes of interest included 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, and vascular complications. In total, 5 studies (4 databases) with a total of 47,933 patients (21,073 females and 26,860 males) were included. Ninety-six percent received TAVR via the transfemoral approach. The females had higher 30-day mortality rates (odds ratio (OR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-1.79, p-value (p) < 0.001) and vascular complications (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p < 0.001). However, one-year mortality was similar between the two groups (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-1.00, p = 0.28). The female gender continues to be associated with higher 30-day mortality rates and vascular complications after TAVR with newer generation transcatheter heart valves, while there was no difference in 1-year mortality between the genders. More data is needed to explore the causes and whether we can improve TAVR outcomes in females.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Comparing Medtronic's Evolut PRO and Evolut R: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a broadly acceptable alternative to AV surgery in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). New valve designs are becoming available to address the shortcomings of their predecessors and improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare Medtronic's Evolut PRO, a new valve, with the previous Evolut R design. Procedural, functional and clinical endpoints according to the VARC-2 criteria were assessed.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies involving N = 12,363 patients were included. Evolut PRO patients differed regarding age (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001) and STS-PROM estimated risk. There was no difference between the two devices in terms of TAVI-related early complications and clinical endpoints. A 35% reduction of the risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (PVL) favoring the Evolut PRO was observed (RR 0.66, 95%CI, [0.52, 0.86] p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Similarly, Evolut PRO-treated patients demonstrated a reduction of over 35% in the risk of serious bleeding as compared with the Evolut R (RR 0.63, 95%CI, [0.41, 0.96]; p = 0.03; I2 = 39%), without differences in major vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence shows good short-term outcomes of both the Evolut PRO and Evolut R prostheses, with no differences in clinical and procedural endpoints. The Evolut PRO was associated with a lower rate of moderate-to-severe PVL and major bleeding.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with different self-expanding devices-a propensity score-matched multicenter comparison

OBJECTIVE

Several supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter systems are commercially available for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Comparative data in large-scale multicenter studies are scant.

METHODS

This study included a total of 5175 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI with the ACURATE neo (n = 1095), Evolut R (n = 3365), or Evolut PRO (n = 715) by a transfemoral approach at five high-volume centers. Propensity score matching resulted in 654 triplets. Outcomes are reported according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) consensus.

RESULTS

Moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) occurred significantly more often in the ACURATE neo group (5.2%) than in the Evolut R (1.8%) and Evolut PRO (3.3%) groups (p = 0.003). The rates of major vascular-/access-related complications (4.6%, 3.8%, and 5.0%; p = 0.56), type 3 or 4 bleeding (3.2%, 2.1%, and 4.1%; p = 0.12), and 30-day mortality (2.4%, 2.6%, and 3.7%; p = 0.40) were comparable. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was significantly lower in the ACURATE neo group (9.5%, 17.6%, and 16.8%; p < 0.001). Independent predictors for 2-year survival were a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score ≥5%, diabetes mellitus, a glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min, baseline mean transvalvular gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg, treating center, and relevant PVR.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter study, TAVI with the ACURATE neo, Evolut R, or Evolut PRO was feasible and safe. The rate of relevant PVR was more frequent after the ACURATE neo implantation, with, however, lower rates of PPI. Two-year survival was mainly driven by baseline comorbidities.

From the Evolut Pro to the Evolut FX self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement systems: current status and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Since the initial experience with the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota), there have been continuous iterations of this valve system in order to improve procedural success and reduce periprocedural complications. The Evolut Pro, Pro+, and FX are the latest generations of this transcatheter heart valve (THV).

AREAS COVERED

This review paper aims to analyze the main characteristics and clinical evidence about the Evolut Pro THV and summarize the main iterations of the newer generation Evolut FX valve system.

EXPERT OPINION

The Evolut Pro system has been associated with good clinical outcomes and excellent valve hemodynamic performance including reduced rates of paravalvular leaks. Technical enhancements to improve valve positioning, orientation, and vascular access have been implemented in the newer generation Evolut FX system.