Abstract:Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment option for older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Differences in the properties of available TAVR systems can affect clinical outcomes. Among patients undergoing TAVR, we compared the self-expanding ACURATE neo TAVR system with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 TAVR system with regard to early safety and efficacy. Methods: In this randomised non-inferiority trial, patients (aged ≥75 years) undergoing transfemoral TAVR for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and who were deemed to be at increased surgical risk, were recruited at 20 tertiary heart valve centres in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive treatment with the ACURATE neo or the SAPIEN 3 with a computer-based randomly permuted block scheme, stratified by study centre and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) category. The primary composite safety and efficacy endpoint comprised all-cause death, any stroke, life-threatening or disabling bleeding, major vascular complications, coronary artery obstruction requiring intervention, acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3), rehospitalisation for valve-related symptoms or congestive heart failure, valve-related dysfunction requiring repeat procedure, moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, or prosthetic valve stenosis within 30 days of the procedure. Endpoint assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority of ACURATE neo compared with SAPIEN 3 was assessed in the intention-to-treat population on the basis of a risk-difference margin of 7·7% for the primary composite endpoint, with a one-sided α of 0·05. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT03011346) and is ongoing but not recruiting. Findings: Between Feb 8, 2017, and Feb 2, 2019, up to 5132 patients were screened and 739 (mean age 82·8 years [SD 4·1]; median STS-PROM score 3·5% [IQR 2·6-5·0]) were enrolled. 30-day follow-up was available for 367 (99%) of 372 patients allocated to the ACURATE neo group, and 364 (99%) of 367 allocated to the SAPIEN 3 group. Within 30 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 87 (24%) patients in the ACURATE neo and in 60 (16%) in the SAPIEN 3 group; thus, non-inferiority of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute risk difference 7·1% [upper 95% confidence limit 12·0%], p=0·42). Secondary analysis of the primary endpoint suggested superiority of the SAPIEN 3 device over the ACURATE neo device (95% CI for risk difference -1·3 to -12·9, p=0·0156). The ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 groups did not differ in incidence of all-cause death (nine patients [2%] vs three [1%]) and stroke (seven [2%] vs 11 [3%]); whereas acute kidney injury (11 [3%] vs three [1%]) and moderate or severe prosthetic aortic regurgitation (34 [9%] vs ten [3%]) were more common in the ACURATE neo group. Interpretation: TAVR with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet non-inferiority compared to the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 device in terms of early safety and clinical efficacy outcomes. An early composite safety and efficacy endpoint was useful in discriminating the performance of different TAVR systems. Funding: Boston Scientific (USA).

Underpowered trials: redundant or useful as a canary in the coal mine?

More questions than answers after NOTION-2

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Low-Risk Tricuspid or Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: The NOTION-2 Trial

Transcatheter vs. surgical treatment of aortc stenosis: long awaited long-term data, yet a long way to go

The Predictors of Conduction Disturbances Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valve: A Multicenter Study

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: 2-year results from the LRT trial

Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial

Final 3-Year Outcomes of a Randomized Trial Comparing a Self-Expanding to a Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Prognostic relevance of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Impact of follow-up time point for decision-making

Prospective study on the impact of different antithrombotic therapies on subclinical leaflet thickening and its temporal dynamics in transcatheter aortic valves-The NOTION-4 trial

Quantitative Aortography Analysis of JenaValve's Trilogy Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation System in Patients With Aortic Regurgitation or Stenosis

Bicuspid Aortic Valve dilemma: TAVI or SAVR? Insights from the NOTION-2 trial

Transcatheter treatment of the tricuspid valve: current status and perspectives

Impact of Renal & Liver Function on Clinical Outcomes Following Tricuspid Valve Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair

Prediction of Mortality and Heart Failure Hospitalization After Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Interventions: Validation of TRISCORE

PCI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation

Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Interventions: A Triumph for Transcatheter Procedures?

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

Real-World Patient Eligibility and Feasibility of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair or Replacement Interventions for Tricuspid Regurgitation

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Impact of Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Low-Risk Patients: LRT Trial 4-Year Outcomes