Comparison of two self-expanding transcatheter heart valves for degenerated surgical bioprostheses: the AVENGER multicentre registry
Won-Keun Kim,Moritz Seiffert,Andreas Rück,David M Leistner,Henryk Dreger,Hendrik Wienemann,Matti Adam,Helge Möllmann,Johannes Blumenstein,Clemens Eckel,Andrea Buono,Diego Maffeo,Antonio Messina,Andreas Holzamer,Samuel Sossalla,Giuliano Costa,Marco Barbanti,Silvia Motta,Corrado Tamburino,Ina von der Heide,Julius Glasmacher,Mohammad Sherif,Philipp Seppelt,Stephan Fichtlscherer,Thomas Walther,Fausto Castriota,Roberto Nerla,Christian Frerker,Tobias Schmidt,Alexander Wolf,Martin M Adamaszek,Francesco Giannini,Maarten Vanhaverbeke,Stefaan Van de Walle,Francis Stammen,Stefan Toggweiler,Stephanie Brunner,Antonio Mangieri,Mauro Gitto,Gerrit Kaleschke,Vlasis Ninios,Ilias Ninios,Judith Hübner,Erion Xhepa,Matthias Renker,Efstratios I Charitos,Michael Joner,Tobias Rheude
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00779
2024-03-18
EuroIntervention
Abstract:Background: There is a lack of comparative data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in degenerated surgical prostheses (valve-in-valve [ViV]). Aims: We sought to compare outcomes of using two self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems for ViV. Methods: In this retrospective multicentre registry, we included consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral ViV using either the ACURATE neo/neo2 (ACURATE group) or the Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (EVOLUT group). The primary outcome measure was technical success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality, device success (VARC-3), coronary obstruction (CO) requiring intervention, rates of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), and aortic regurgitation (AR) ≥moderate. Comparisons were made after 1:1 propensity score matching. Results: The study cohort comprised 835 patients from 20 centres (ACURATE n=251; EVOLUT n=584). In the matched cohort (n=468), technical success (ACURATE 92.7% vs EVOLUT 88.9%; p=0.20) and device success (69.7% vs 73.9%; p=0.36) as well as 30-day mortality (2.8% vs 1.6%; p=0.392) were similar between the two groups. The mean gradients and rates of severe PPM, AR ≥moderate, or CO did not differ between the groups. Technical and device success were higher for the ACURATE platform among patients with a true inner diameter (ID) >19 mm, whereas a true ID ≤19 mm was associated with higher device success - but not technical success - among Evolut recipients. Conclusions: ViV TAVI using either ACURATE or Evolut THVs showed similar procedural outcomes. However, a true ID >19 mm was associated with higher device success among ACURATE recipients, whereas in patients with a true ID ≤19 mm, device success was higher when using Evolut.