Outcomes of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared With Surgical Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients

Mahesh V Madhavan,Susheel K Kodali,Vinod H Thourani,Raj Makkar,Michael J Mack,Samir Kapadia,John G Webb,David J Cohen,Howard C Herrmann,Mathew Williams,Kevin Greason,Philippe Pibarot,Rebecca T Hahn,Wael Jaber,Ke Xu,Maria Alu,Craig R Smith,Martin B Leon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.04.049
2023-07-11
Abstract:Background: Previous studies demonstrated transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an earlier generation balloon-expandable valve to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for death and disabling stroke in intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic, severe aortic stenosis at 5 years. However, limited long-term data are available with the more contemporary SAPIEN 3 (S3) bioprosthesis. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 5-year risk-adjusted outcomes in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR vs SAVR. Methods: Propensity score matching was performed to account for baseline differences in intermediate-risk patients undergoing S3 TAVR in the PARTNER 2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) S3 single-arm study and SAVR in the PARTNER 2A randomized clinical trial. The primary composite endpoint consisted of 5-year all-cause death and disabling stroke. Results: A total of 783 matched pairs of intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis were studied. There were no differences in the primary endpoint between S3 TAVR and SAVR at 5 years (40.2% vs 42.7%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74-1.03; P = 0.10). The incidence of mild or greater paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. There were no differences in structural valve deterioration-related stage 2 and 3 hemodynamic valve deterioration or bioprosthetic valve failure. Conclusions: In this propensity-matched analysis of intermediate-risk patients, 5-year rates of death and disabling stroke were similar between S3 TAVR and SAVR. Rates of structural valve deterioration-related hemodynamic valve deterioration were similar, but paravalvular regurgitation was more common after S3 TAVR. Longer-term follow-up is needed to further evaluate differences in late adverse clinical events and bioprosthetic valve durability. (PII S3i [PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - S3 Intermediate], NCT03222128; PII A (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk], NCT01314313).
What problem does this paper attempt to address?