10-Year Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Leaflet Design (Intra- Versus Supra-Annular) in Mortality and Hemodynamic Performance

Clinical outcomes, hemodynamics, and leaflet thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with novel intra-annular devices

Background

The indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is becoming more prevalent among younger and lower-risk patients. However, data on the latest intra-annular TAVR devices are limited. This study aims to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of two intra-annular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices in Japan: SAPIEN 3 Ultra RESILIA (S3UR) and Navitor.

Methods

Of the 286 patients who underwent TAVR between May 2022 and October 2023 at our center, we enrolled 97 consecutive patients who received either S3UR or Navitor. We compared the intraprocedural invasive and echocardiographic hemodynamic assessment and post-procedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

Results

The basic characteristics of the 97 patients (median age, 86 years [interquartile range, 81-89 years]) were similar. Technical success, defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium, was achieved in all cases. Despite a smaller annulus, Navitor demonstrated decreased mean pressure gradient by TTE, 9.2 [7.3-13.6] mmHg versus 7.5 [5.9-9.5] mmHg, p = 0.006; but not by invasive measurement 5.1 [3.4-7.7] mmHg versus 5.3 [3.2-7.9] mmHg, p = 0.986). Discordance between echocardiographic and invasive assessment was more prominent with S3UR. However, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was similarly noted between the two devices. Mild paravalvular leak (PVL) (24.5% vs. 54.5%, p = 0.002) was more frequent with the Navitor, despite no moderate-severe PVL in each group. The incidence of hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) detected by MDCT was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Both intra-annular valves demonstrated excellent hemodynamic performance with minimal PVL after TAVR. The incidence of HALT in both devices was comparable.

Hemodynamic Valve Deterioration After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Predictors, and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Reports on the durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) prostheses are scarce and confounded by varying definitions and competing risks of death.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD) according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 definition after TAVR.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in the prospective Bern TAVI (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry between August 2007 and June 2022 for the incidence and predictors of HVD and performed case control-matching to compare outcomes according to HVD.

RESULTS

A total of 2,403 eligible patients (mean age 81.8 ± 6.2 years, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 3.8% [Q1-Q3: 2.4%-6.0%]) were included and had a median duration of follow-up of 376 days (Q1-Q3: 365-1,825 days). The cumulative incidence of moderate or severe HVD was 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.1%), 10.8% (95% CI: 9.2%-12.7%), and 25.6% (95% CI: 17.5%-36.5%) at 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Aortic valve complex calcium volume (HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.11-2.97; P = 0.018), residual aortic regurgitation at discharge (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.34-2.60; P < 0.001), and treatment with oral anticoagulants (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.00-3.15; P = 0.048) were independent predictors of HVD. In the case control-matched cohort (HVD, n = 155, no-HVD, n = 600), patients with HVD had similar yearly rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and infective endocarditis, but higher rates of repeat aortic valve intervention (rate ratio [RR]: 4.81 [95% CI: 1.74-13.26]; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

HVD occurred in up to 1 in 4 patients throughout 10-year post-TAVR and was associated with a 5-fold increase in the risk of aortic valve reintervention.

Supra-Annular Versus Intra-Annular Self-Expanding Valves in Small Aortic Annulus: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expanding valves (SEVs) may have different outcomes with supra-annular valves (SAVs) or intra-annular valves (IAVs) in patients with small aortic annuli (SAA), but this topic remains underexplored. We aimed to evaluate outcomes between different SEVs, namely SAVs (CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO/PRO+/FX) vs. IAVs (Portico/Navitor).

Methods

Single-center data with patients with SAA (maximum diameter <23 mm) who underwent TAVR from 2013 to 2023 with SEVs, followed by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

We obtained 86 PSM pairs with median age of 83.0 years (SAVs) and 82.0 years (IAVs), with women representing 77.6% of the PSM cohort. After TAVR, we did not find statistically significant differences for the following outcomes: Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 periprocedural mortality, technical success, device success, clinical efficacy, and rates of paravalvular leak were not statistically significantly different, but we found higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation in the IAV group (1.2 vs. 8.1%; p = 0.029). Despite the larger indexed effective orifice area with SAVs (median 1.0 vs. 0.8 cm2/m2, p = 0.001), we did not find statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of residual mean gradients >20 mmHg (0.0 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.155), and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (2.3 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.390). No statistically significant difference was observed in survival (log-rank p = 0.950) and stroke (p = 0.6547) between patients who received SAVs and IAVs. For patients with SAA, TAVR with SEV devices is safe.

Conclusions

IAVs and SAVs are associated with comparable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.

Improved Hemodynamics With Self-Expanding Compared to Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Small Annulus Patients: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

Patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) pose a challenge in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement because of the potential for prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). This study aimed to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of self-expandable valve (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA. All patients who underwent TAVI for severe native aortic stenosis with a SAA between January 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study from a single center. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics. Bioprosthesis valve dysfunction was based on modified Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 criteria. A total of 1,170 TAVI procedures were performed between 2018 and 2022. After applying the exclusion criteria, 332 patients reported a SAA at computed tomography scan, and the matching created 109 balanced pairs. Echocardiographic data at discharge showed higher mean transvalvular gradients (p <0.001), higher grades of mitral regurgitation (p = 0.029), and lower ejection fraction (p <0.043) in BEVs than SEVs. At follow-up, significant differences favoring the SEV group regarding bioprosthesis valve dysfunction were observed (p = 0.002), especially in terms of severe PPM (p = 0.046) and at least moderate structural valve deterioration (p = 0.040). In conclusion, TAVI in patients with SAA using a BEV was associated with lower valve areas, higher mean pressure gradients, and PPM (including severe) than a SEV. Short- and midterm all-cause and cardiac-related mortality did not differ between the 2 groups. Future randomized studies with extended follow-ups are warranted to validate these outcomes.

Short-Term Outcomes of ACURATE neo2

Inferior outcomes with ACURATE neo, a self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis, were mainly driven by higher rates of moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL). To overcome this limitation, the next-generation ACURATE neo2 features a 60% larger external sealing skirt. Data on long-term performance are limited; however, clinical evidence suggests improved short-term performance which is comparable to contemporary THVs. This report reviews data on short-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of ACURATE neo2. A PubMed search yielded 13 studies, including 5 single arm and 8 nonrandomized comparative studies with other THVs which reported in-hospital or 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. In-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality was ≤3.3%, which is comparable to other contemporary THVs. The rates of postprocedural ≧moderate PVL ranged 0.6%-4.7%. In multicenter propensity-matched analyses, neo2 significantly reduced the rate of ≧moderate PVL compared to neo (3.5% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.01), whereas rates were comparable to Evolut Pro/Pro+ (Neo2: 2.0% vs. Pro/Pro+: 3.1%, p = 0.28) and SAPIEN 3 Ultra (Neo2: 0.6% vs. Ultra: 1.1%, p = 0.72). The rate of permanent pacemaker implantation with neo2 was consistently low (3.3%-8.6%) except in one study, and in propensity-matched analyses were significantly lower than Evolut Pro/Pro+ (6.7% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01), and comparable to SAPIEN 3 Ultra (8.1% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.29). In conclusion, ACURATE neo2 showed better short-term performance by considerably reducing PVL compared to its predecessor, with short-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes comparable to contemporary THVs.

Long-term follow-up of balloon-expandable valves according to the implantation strategy: insight from the DIRECTAVI trial

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) using the SAPIEN 3 balloon-expandable device has been previously demonstrated. The impact on long-term valve hemodynamic performances and outcomes remains however unknown. We evaluate long-term clinical and hemodynamic results according to the implant strategy (direct TAVR vs BAV pre-TAVR) in patients included in the DIRECTAVI randomized trial (NCT02729519).

METHODS

Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up until January 2023 was performed for all patients included in the DIRECTAVI trial since 2016 (n = 228). The primary endpoint was incidence of moderate/severe hemodynamic valve deterioration (HVD), according to the Valve Academic Research defined Consortium-3 criteria (increase in mean gradient ≥10 mmHg resulting in a final mean gradient ≥20 mmHg, or new/worsening aortic regurgitation of 1 grade resulting in ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 3.8 (2.2-4.7) years. Mean age at follow-up was 87 ± 6.7 years. No difference in incidence of HVD in the direct implantation group compared to the BAV group was found (incidence of 1.97 per 100 person-years and 1.45 per 100 person-years, respectively, P = 0.6). Prevalence of predicted prothesis-patient mismatch was low (n = 13 [11.4%] in the direct TAVR group vs n = 15 [13.2%] in BAV group) and similar between both groups (P = .7). Major outcomes including death, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure and pacemaker implantation were similar between both groups, (P = .4, P = .7, P = .3, and P = .3 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Direct implantation of the balloon-expandable device in TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of moderate/severe HVD or major outcomes up to 6-year follow-up. These results guarantee wide use of direct balloon-expandable valve implantation, when feasible.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05140317.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Valves: A Comprehensive Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a safe, effective, and less invasive approach to aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis. In patients who underwent prior aortic valve replacement, transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic valve dysfunction may occur as a result of structural deterioration or nonstructural causes such as prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and paravalvular regurgitation. Valve-in-Valve (ViV) TAVR is a procedure that is being increasingly utilized for the replacement of failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Data regarding long-term outcomes are limited due to the recency of the procedure's approval, but available data regarding the short- and long-term outcomes of ViV TAVR are promising. Studies have shown a reduction in perioperative and 30-day mortality with ViV TAVR procedures compared to redo surgical repair of failed bioprosthetic aortic valves, but 1-year and 5-year mortality rates are more controversial and lack sufficient data. Despite the reduction in 30-day mortality, PPM and rates of coronary obstruction are higher in ViV TAVR as compared to both redo surgical valve repair and native TAVR procedures. New transcatheter heart valve designs and new procedural techniques have been developed to reduce the risk of PPM and coronary obstruction. Newer generation valves, new procedural techniques, and increased operator experience with ViV TAVR may improve patient outcomes; however, further studies are needed to better understand the safety, efficacy, and durability of ViV TAVR.

Long-term risk of reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has surpassed surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as the predominant mode of valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term need for valvular reintervention after TAVR remains unknown.

METHODS

Using data from the Medicare Fee for Service 100% dataset, all patients receiving TAVR between July 2011 and December 2020 were identified. Patients were categorized as receiving a valve reintervention (either surgical or transcatheter) or not using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS). A competing risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative probability of valve reintervention.

RESULTS

Of 230,644 TAVR patients were identified, of whom 1,880 received a reintervention. Patients receiving a reintervention were younger and more likely to be male. At 10 years, the crude rate of reintervention was 0.59% within a surviving cohort of 341 patients. After adjusting for the competing risk of death and other covariates, the adjusted cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years after TAVR was 1.63%. When the rate of reinterventions was compared between early (2011-2016) and later (2017-2020) time periods, the risk-adjusted rate of reintervention at 4 years had decreased over time (0.85% vs 0.51%).

CONCLUSION

The 10-year risk of valve reintervention after TAVR is low and appears to be decreasing over time. Further research is necessary to determine the driving factors contributing to valve reintervention in the current era.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an alternative treatment to surgical AVR, but the long-term outcomes of TAVR remain unclear.

AIMS

This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes following TAVR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through November 2022; studies reporting clinical outcomes of TAVR with follow-up periods of ≥8 years were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival and/or freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD). Surgical risk was assessed with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. A subgroup analysis was conducted for intermediate-/high-surgical risk patients only.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 5458 patients were identified and analyzed. The mean age was 82.0 ± 6.5 years, and mean STS PROM score ranged from 2.9 to 10.6%. Survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 47.7% ± 1.4% and 12.1 ± 2.0%. Five studies including 1509 patients were analyzed for SVD. Freedom from SVD at 5 and 8 years was 95.5 ± 0.7% and 85.1 ± 3.1%. Similar results for survival and SVD were noted in the subgroup analysis of intermediate-/high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Following TAVR, approximately 88% of patients died within 10 years, whereas 85% were free from SVD at 8 years. These date suggest that baseline patient demographic have the greatest impact on survival, and SVD does not seem to have a prognostic impact in this population. Further investigations on longer-term outcomes of younger and lower-risk patients are warranted.

Long-Term Survival Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Real-World Experience of a Large Tertiary Center

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) becomes the leading therapeutic choice for severe aortic stenosis. There is a growing body of knowledge on long-term survival outcomes, but available data from real-world observational studies are scarce. An observational cohort study was conducted on 705 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at Strasbourg University Hospital between February 2010 and June 2017. We observed the living status (dead or alive) for each study participants by March 2023. The primary end point was to evaluate the all-cause mortality rate beyond 5 years after TAVR, compare the survival outcomes according to valve type, and identify predictors of mortality. Of the 705 study participants, 91.8% of the TAVR procedures were performed through the common femoral artery and 60.6% were treated with a balloon-expandable valve. Over a mean study period of 5.4 ± 3 years, the all-cause mortality rate was 45.8%. No difference in survival outcomes according to valve type was observed (p = 0.449). All-cause mortality rate was associated with age ≥90 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.625, 1.109 to 2.380, p = 0.013), female gender (HR 0.228, 0.176 to 0.294, p <0.001), diabetes mellitus (HR 1.356, 1.070 to 1.719, p = 0.012), post-TAVR stroke (HR = 2.867, 1.690 to 4.865, p <0.001), and post-TAVR acute kidney injury (HR 1.977, 1.445 to 2.703, p <0.001). In conclusion, the present real-world large tertiary center experience showed that more than half of patients who underwent TAVR are alive beyond 5 years from procedure's date. All-cause mortality is mainly determined by advanced age and co-morbid conditions, and valve type has no advantage on the survival outcomes.

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Evolut PRO/PRO+ Self-Expanding Valves: Insights From the NEOPRO/NEOPRO-2 Registries

BACKGROUND

In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) techniques and technology have continuously improved. Data regarding the impact of these advancements on outcomes in large real-world settings are still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends and assess contemporary outcomes after TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ supra-annular self-expanding valves.

METHODS

This study included patients enrolled in the multicenter NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) and NEOPRO-2 (A Multicenter Comparison of ACURATE NEO2 Versus Evolut PRO/PRO+ Transcatheter Heart Valves 2) registries who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+. Procedural dates (August 2017 through November 2021) were stratified in quartiles (Q) and used to investigate temporal trends in TAVR outcomes. Predischarge, 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 defined, and 1-year outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 1616 patients from 28 centers were included. Over time, patients had lower Society of Thoracic Surgeon-Predicted Risk of Mortality score (Q1-4, 4.1% [2.8-6.3%], 3.7% [2.6-5.3%], 3.3% [2.4-4.9%], 2.9% [2.2-4.3%]; P<0.001) and more moderate or heavy valve calcification (Q1-4, 80%, 80%, 82%, 88%; P=0.038). Overall Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 technical success was 94.1%, with 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality of 2.4% and 10%, respectively. Throughout the study period, procedures were associated with higher rates of 30-day device success (Q1-4, 81.2%, 82.2%, 82.0%, 88.0%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and early safety (Q1-4, 66.8%, 67.5%, 74.0%, 77.6%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001), with fewer permanent pacemaker implantations (Q1-4: 15.3%, 20.0%, 12.1%, 11.6%; Cochran-Armitage P=0.023) and residual mild or greater paravalvular leaks (Q1-4, 50.4%, 42.1%, 36.5%, 35.8%; Cochran-Armitage P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR with Evolut PRO/PRO+ self-expanding valve is safe and effective. Despite the treatment of heavier calcified anatomies, procedural outcomes are improving over time with less need for pacemaker implantation and less significant paravalvular leaks.