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

Sabine Bleiziffer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad873

IF: 39.3

2024-02-23

European Heart Journal

Abstract:This editorial refers to 'Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial', by H.G.H. Thyregod et al ., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae043.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Hans Gustav Hørsted Thyregod,Troels Højsgaard Jørgensen,Nikolaj Ihlemann,Daniel Andreas Steinbrüchel,Henrik Nissen,Bo Juel Kjeldsen,Petur Petursson,Ole De Backer,Peter Skov Olsen,Lars Søndergaard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae043

IF: 39.3

2024-02-08

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background and Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years. Methods The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7–1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04–0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4–1.5; P = .4). Conclusions In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Update of Transcatheter Valve Treatment

Xian-bao Liu,Jian-an Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.bqicc702

2013-01-01

Abstract:Transcatheter valve implantation or repair has been a very promising approach for the treatment of valvular heart diseases since transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was successfully performed in 2002. Great achievements have been made in this field (especially TAVI and transcatheter mitral valve repair-MitraClip system) in recent years. Evidence from clinical trials or registry studies has proved that transcatheter valve treatment for valvular heart diseases is safe and effective in surgical high-risk or inoperable patients. As the evidence accumulates, transcatheter valve treatment might be an alterative surgery for younger patients with surgically low or intermediate risk valvular heart diseases in the near future. In this paper, the updates on transcatheter valve treatment are reviewed.
Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Giuseppe Talanas,Angelo Laconi,Dean J Kereiakes,Pierluigi Merella,Michael J Reardon,Andrea Spano,Gerardo Petretto,Francesco Lauriola,Marta Casula,Valentina Micheluzzi,Mehriban Isgender,Yiannis Chatzizisis,Michael E Farkouh,Alexandra J Lansky,Nicolo Piazza,Michele Portoghese,Gavino Casu,Eliano Pio Navarese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102143

2024-05-15

Abstract:Background: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing long-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. The short-term efficacy and safety of TAVR are proven, but long-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR vs SAVR at the longest available follow-up. The primary end point was death or disabling stroke. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, valve thrombosis, valve gradients, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481856). Results: Seven trials (N = 7785 patients) were included. Weighted mean trial follow-up was 5.76 ± 0.073 years. Overall, no significant difference in death or disabling stroke was observed with TAVR vs SAVR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; P = .70). Mortality risks were similar. TAVR resulted in higher pacemaker implantation and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared to SAVR. Results were consistent across different surgical risk profiles. As compared to SAVR, self-expanding TAVR had lower death or stroke risk (P interaction = .06), valve thrombosis (P interaction = .06), and valve gradients (P interaction < .01) but higher pacemaker implantation rates than balloon-expandable TAVR (P interaction < .01). Conclusions: In severe aortic stenosis, the long-term mortality or disabling stroke risk of TAVR is similar to SAVR, but with higher risk of pacemaker implantation, especially with self-expanding valves. As compared with SAVR, the relative reduction in death or stroke risk and valve thrombosis was greater with self-expanding than with balloon-expandable valves.
Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Andreas Mitsis,Xun Yuan,Christos Eftychiou,Panayiotis Avraamides,Christoph A. Nienaber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9110407

2022-11-21

Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) has become a game changer in the management of severe aortic stenosis shifting the concept from inoperable or high-risk patients to intermediate or low surgical-risk individuals. Among devices available nowadays, there is no clear evidence that one device is better than the other or that one device is suitable for all patients. The selection of the optimal TAVI valve for every patient represents a challenging process for clinicians, given a large number of currently available devices. Consequently, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each valve and personalising the valve selection based on patient-specific clinical and anatomical characteristics is paramount. This review article aims to both analyse the available devices in the presence of specific clinical and anatomic features and offer guidance to select the most suitable valve for a given patient.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Stable incidence and outcomes for patients with incident aortic stenosis: how can we translate excellent trial data into improved clinical outcomes in the population?

Andreas Martinsson,Ravi Rasalingam,Anders Jeppsson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae078

IF: 39.3

2024-03-06

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Graphical Abstract The incidence and evolution of the treatment strategies and outcomes over time. The findings indicate that the excellent trial results for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis have not yet fully translated into a real-world setting. Created with BioRender.com The incidence and evolution of the treatment strategies and outcomes over time. The findings indicate that the excellent trial results for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis have not yet fully translated into a real-world setting. Created with BioRender.com

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis.

P. Jüni,S. Windecker,T. Petrinic,B. Prendergast,T. Pilgrim,F. Praz,S. Verma,A. Nikolakopoulou,T. Cahill,G. Siontis,L. Søndergaard,T. Modine,P. Overtchouk,G. Salanti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHZ275

IF: 39.3

2019-10-07

European Heart Journal

Abstract:AIMS Owing to new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, we compared the collective safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the entire spectrum of surgical risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS The meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016037273). We identified RCTs comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis reporting at different follow-up periods. We extracted trial, patient, intervention, and outcome characteristics following predefined criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality up to 2 years for the main analysis. Seven trials that randomly assigned 8020 participants to TAVI (4014 patients) and SAVR (4006 patients) were included. The combined mean STS score in the TAVI arm was 9.4%, 5.1%, and 2.0% for high-, intermediate-, and low surgical risk trials, respectively. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality compared to SAVR {hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.99], P = 0.030}; an effect that was consistent across the entire spectrum of surgical risk (P-for-interaction = 0.410) and irrespective of type of transcatheter heart valve (THV) system (P-for-interaction = 0.674). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation resulted in lower risk of strokes [HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.68-0.98), P = 0.028]. Surgical aortic valve replacement was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complications [HR 1.99 (95% CI 1.34-2.93), P = 0.001] and permanent pacemaker implantations [HR 2.27 (95% CI 1.47-3.64), P < 0.001] compared to TAVI. CONCLUSION Compared with SAVR, TAVI is associated with reduction in all-cause mortality and stroke up to 2 years irrespective of baseline surgical risk and type of THV system.

Medicine
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): state of the art techniques and future perspectives

Enrico Ferrari,Ludwig Karl von Segesser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2010.13127

2010-12-01

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic valve therapies are the newest established techniques for the treatment of high risk patients affected by severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. The transapical approach requires a left anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, whereas the transfemoral method requires an adequate peripheral vascular access and can be performed fully percutaneously. Alternatively, the trans-subclavian access has been recently proposed as a third promising approach. Depending on the technique, the fine stent-valve positioning can be performed with or without contrast injections. The transapical echo-guided stent-valve implantation without angiography (the Lausanne technique) relies entirely on transoesophageal echocardiogramme imaging for the fine stent-valve positioning and it has been proved that this technique prevents the onset of postoperative contrast-related acute kidney failure. Recent published reports have shown good hospital outcomes and short-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but there are no proven advantages in using the transfemoral or the transapical technique. In particular, the transapical series have a higher mean logistic Euroscore of 27-35%, a procedural success rate above 95% and a mean 30-day mortality between 7.5 and 17.5%, whereas the transfemoral results show a lower logistic Euroscore of 23-25.5%, a procedural success rate above 90% and a 30-day mortality of 7-10.8%. Nevertheless, further clinical trials and long-term results are mandatory to confirm this positive trend. Future perspectives in transcatheter aortic valve therapies would be the development of intravascular devices for the ablation of the diseased valve leaflets and the launch of new stent-valves with improved haemodynamic, different sizes and smaller delivery systems.
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes, Indications, Complications, and Innovations

Michael N Young,Ignacio Inglessis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-017-0580-0

2017-09-22

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in individuals who are at prohibitive surgical risk and presents a viable alternative to surgery in selected patients who are at high operative risk. To date, outcomes from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valve) and Medtronic CoreValve® US Pivotal trials continue to show the benefits of TAVR in these high-risk subgroups out to 5 and 3 years, respectively (as reported by Mack et al. Lancet. 85:2477-2484 2015; Kapadia et al. Lancet. 385:2485-2491 2015; Deeb et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 67:2565-2574 2016). Furthermore, the recent release of the PARTNER-2 and SURTAVI trial results among other international data suggest that clinical outcomes for intermediate risk patients may be promising for TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (as reported by Leon et al. N Engl J Med. 374:1609-1620 2016; Reardon et al. N Engl J Med. 376:1321-1331 2017). However, several questions persist regarding TAVR-specific complications as well as long-term durability. Paravalvular regurgitation, permanent pacemaker implantation, stroke, vascular access injury, and renal failure in post-TAVR patients remain adversaries in the quest to perfect this groundbreaking, game-changing technology (as reported by Khatri et al. Ann Intern Med. 158:35-46 2013). In this review, we provide an up-to-date synopsis of results from landmark clinical trials that cumulatively attest to the comparability of TAVR to best medical therapy and SAVR in extreme-risk, high-risk, and intermediate-risk patient populations. We continue with a review of studies that seek to compare transcatheter vs. surgical valve implantation in lower-risk subgroups. We also introduce ongoing efforts to optimize the peri-procedural management of TAVR and conclude with a presentation of management strategies and new generation valve platforms that seek to address some of the current limitations of transcatheter valve implantation.
Outcomes after transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation: long-term findings from the European ROUTE†

Riccardo Cocchieri,Rainer Petzina,Mauro Romano,Dariusz Jagielak,Nikolaos Bonaros,Marco Aiello,Joel Lapeze,Mika Laine,Sidney Chocron,Douglas Muir,Walter Eichinger,Matthias Thielmann,Louis Labrousse,Kjell Arne Rein,Jean-Philippe Verhoye,Gino Gerosa,Vinayak Bapat,Hardy Baumbach,Helen Sims,Cornelia Deutsch,Peter Bramlage,Jana Kurucova,Martin Thoenes,Derk Frank

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy333

2019-04-01

Abstract:Objectives: There is lack of data regarding the longer-term outcomes of patients undergoing transaortic (TAo) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to provide a contemporary snapshot of the types and frequencies of events in the year following TAo-TAVI. Methods: The Registry of the Utilization of the TAo-TAVI approach using the Edwards SAPIEN Valve (ROUTE) is a multicentre, European, prospective, observational registry of aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAo-TAVI. Patients were grouped according to the composite end point death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) and/or cardiovascular rehospitalization. Results: Two hundred and fifty-three patients with a mean age of 81.5 ± 5.8 years were included, of whom 89 (35.2%) patients met the composite end point (the event group) and 164 (64.8%) patients did not (the event-free group). New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (85.2% vs 71.8%, P = 0.017), Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class III/IV (22.6% vs 11.4%; P = 0.021), pulmonary disease (32.6% vs 18.9%; P = 0.015) and renal insufficiency (15.7% vs 3.0%; P < 0.001) were more common in the event group. At 1 year, the most common event was death (19.1%), followed by AKI stage II or III (14.7%). The baseline renal insufficiency was the strongest independent predictor of composite end point achievement [odds ratio (OR) 7.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.33-24.56], followed by NYHA class III/IV (OR 2.316, 95% CI 1.06-5.06) and pulmonary disease (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.45-5.85). Pulmonary disease was also an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.34-6.75). Conclusions: Long-term outcomes after TAo-TAVI appear to be similar to those for TAVI via other non-transfemoral access routes. Awareness of characteristics associated with poorer outcomes may aid patient selection and identification of those requiring closer post-procedural monitoring. Clinical trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01991431.
Long-term outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves: Insights from the OBSERVANT study

Giuliano Costa,Paola D'Errigo,Stefano Rosato,Roberto Valvo,Fausto Biancari,Corrado Tamburino,Francesco Cerza,Stefano Domenico Cicala,Fulvia Seccareccia,Marco Barbanti,OBSERVANT Research Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29701

2021-11-15

Abstract:Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) up to 5 years. Background: To date, no robust, comparative data of BE and SE TAVs at long-term are available. Methods: We considered a total of 1,440 patients enrolled in the multicenter OBSERVANT study and undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) with either supra-annular SE (n = 830, 57.6%) and intra-annular BE (n = 610, 42.4%) valves. Clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and confirmed by sensitivity analysis with propensity score matching. Results: Patients receiving SE valve showed a higher all-cause mortality at 5 years (Kaplan-Meier estimates 52.3% vs. 47.7%; Hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.38, p = .04). Landmark analyses showed that there was a not statistically significant reversal of risk excess against the BE group starting from 3 years after TAVI (3-5 years HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76-1.25, p = .86). Post-procedural, moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR)(HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87; p < .01) and acute kidney injury (AKI)(HR 3.89, 95% CI 2.47-6.38; p < .01) showed to be independent predictors of 5-year all-cause mortality in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Considering the intrinsic limitations of the OBSERVANT study, we found that patients undergoing TF-TAVI with a supra-annular SE valve had a higher all-cause mortality compared to those receiving an intra-annular BE valve at 5 years. A late catch up phenomenon of patients receiving the BE valve was observed beyond 3 years. Post-procedural moderate/severe PVR seems to play a crucial role in determining this finding. Comparative studies of new generation devices with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the benefit of each specific TAV type.
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

Jonas Lanz,Won-Keun Kim,Thomas Walther,Christof Burgdorf,Helge Möllmann,Axel Linke,Simon Redwood,Christian Thilo,Michael Hilker,Michael Joner,Holger Thiele,Lars Conzelmann,Lenard Conradi,Sebastian Kerber,Gerhard Schymik,Bernard Prendergast,Oliver Husser,Stefan Stortecky,Dik Heg,Peter Jüni,Stephan Windecker,Thomas Pilgrim,SCOPE I investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32220-2

2019-11-02

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).
Clinical Outcomes With a Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prosthesis: The International FORWARD Study

Eberhard Grube,Nicolas M Van Mieghem,Sabine Bleiziffer,Thomas Modine,Johan Bosmans,Ganesh Manoharan,Axel Linke,Werner Scholtz,Didier Tchétché,Ariel Finkelstein,Ramiro Trillo,Claudia Fiorina,Antony Walton,Christopher J Malkin,Jae K Oh,Hongyan Qiao,Stephan Windecker,FORWARD Study Investigators,Nicolas Van Mieghem,Ajay Sinhal,Robert Gooley,Tony Walton,Gerald Yong,John Webb,Michael Chu,Sam Radhakrishnan,Antonio Dager,Marian Branny,Didier Tchetche,Emmanuel Teiger,Bernard Chevalier,Dominique Himbert,Gerhard Schymik,Tobias Zeus,Christoph Jensen,Tienush Rassaf,Stephan Fichtlscherer,Georg Nickenig,Jörg Kempfert,Axel Harnath,Ruth Strasser,Christian Frerker,Konstantinos Spargias,Béla Peter Merkely,Corrado Tamburino,Antonio Colombo,Anna Sonia Petronio,Francesco Bedogni,Giovanni Amoroso,Jan van der Heijden,Pim Tonino,Pedro Echeverria Beliz,Adam Witkowski,Vasco Gama Ribeiro,Moheeb Al Abdullah,Hellmuth Weich,José Maria Hernández García,Cesar Moris,Anders Lars Jönsson,Saib Khogali,David Hildick-Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.045

2017-08-15

Abstract:Background: Clinical outcomes in large patient populations from real-world clinical practice with a next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve are lacking. Objectives: This study sought to document the clinical and device performance outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation, self-expanding transcatheter heart valve (THV) system in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in routine clinical practice. Methods: The FORWARD (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD) study is a prospective, single-arm, multinational, multicenter, observational study. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated safety endpoints based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. An independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms. From January 2016 to December 2016, TAVR with the next-generation self-expanding THV was attempted in 1,038 patients with symptomatic, severe AS at 53 centers on 4 continents. Results: Mean age was 81.8 ± 6.2 years, 64.9% were women, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 5.5 ± 4.5%, and 33.9% of patients were deemed frail. The repositioning feature of the THV was applied in 25.8% of patients. A single valve was implanted in the proper anatomic location in 98.9% of patients. The mean aortic valve gradient was 8.5 ± 5.6 mm Hg, and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was 1.9% at discharge. All-cause mortality was 1.9%, and disabling stroke occurred in 1.8% at 30 days. The expected-to-observed early surgical mortality ratio was 0.35. A pacemaker was implanted in 17.5% of patients. Conclusions: TAVR using the next-generation THV is clinically safe and effective for treating older patients with severe AS at increased operative risk. (CoreValve Evolut R FORWARD Study [FORWARD]; NCT02592369).
More questions than answers after NOTION-2

Victor Dayan,Sanjay Kaul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae527

IF: 39.3

2024-08-22

European Heart Journal

Abstract:This commentary refers to 'Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial', by T.H. Jørgensen et al. , https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae331 and the discussion piece 'Underpowered trials: redundant or useful as a canary in the coal mine?', by T.H. Jørgensen et al ., https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae528.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Percutaneous Balloon–Expandable Stent Implantation to Treat Transverse Aortic Arch Obstruction: Medium- to Long-Term Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study

Arash Salavitabar,Mariah Eisner,Aimee K. Armstrong,Brian A. Boe,Joanne L. Chisolm,John P. Cheatham,Sharon L. Cheatham,Thomas Forbes,Thomas K. Jones,Gregor J. Krings,Brian H. Morray,Zachary L. Steinberg,Jyothsna Akam-Venkata,Michiel Voskuil,Darren P. Berman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.123.013729

2024-04-28

Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Ahead of Print. BACKGROUND:Transverse aortic arch obstruction is a challenging lesion for which stent implantation provides a potentially important alternate therapy. The objectives were to evaluate the technical, procedural, and medium-to-long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous stent implantation of transverse aortic arch obstruction.METHODS:This is a retrospective, multicenter study of transverse aortic arch stent implantation. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.RESULTS:Index catheterization included 187 stent implants in 146 patients. The median age is 14.3 years (interquartile range, 9.3–19), weight is 53 kg (30–69), and follow-up is 53 months (12–120). The most common stent design was open cell (n=90, 48%). Stents overlapped 142 arch vessels (37 carotid arteries) in 118 (81%) cases. Technical and procedural success rates were 100% and 88%, respectively. Lower weight (P=0.018), body surface area (P=0.013), and minimum-to-descending aortic diameter ratio (P<0.001) were associated with higher baseline aortic gradient. The residual gradient was inversely associated with implant and final dilation diameters (P 10 mm Hg was associated with increased odds of reintervention at all time points when controlling for each final dilation diameter, weight, and minimum-to-descending aortic diameter ratio.CONCLUSIONS:Transverse aortic arch stent implantation has high rates of technical, procedural, and medium-to-long-term clinical success. Aortic gradient >10 mm Hg is associated with increased odds of reintervention at 1-year and most recent follow-ups. Open cell stent design was frequently used for its advantages in conformability, perfusion of arch vessels, low fracture rate, and the ability to perform effective angioplasty of side cells.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: comparison of results from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

Dandan Wang,Litao Huang,Yuhui Zhang,Zeyi Cheng,Xin Zhang,Pengwei Ren,Qi Hong,Deying Kang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0288

2020-01-01

Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world study (RWS) appear to be discordant. We aimed to investigate whether data derived from RCTs and RWS evaluating long-term all-cause mortality of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) were in agreement.METHODS: RCTs or RWS comparing TAVI and SAVR, reporting longterm (≥2-year follow-up) all-cause mortality, were identified. We also carried out subgroup analyses to access the effect in different subgroups. A pre-designated data extraction form including 5 domains and 26 items was used to explore the relationship between RCTs and RWS. Mortality and effect in different subgroups were evaluated using random-effects meta-analyses.RESULTS: Five RCTs (5421 participants, TAVI: 2759, SAVR: 2662) and 33 RWS (20839 participants; TAVI: 6585, SAVR: 14254) were identified. Pooled RCT analysis showed no difference in all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR (HR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.88-1.07; P=0.55). In RWS, TAVI was associated with an increased risk of allcause mortality (HR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.26-1.69; P<0.001) compared to SAVR.CONCLUSION: These results highlight the inconsistencies between RCTs and RWS in assessing long-term all-cause mortality in the treatment of AS using TAVI or SAVR, which may be caused by interactions of clinical characteristics or study design. RCTs as well as RWS are both developing and improving; the advantages of one kind of design, measurement and evaluation can and should be thoughtfully referred to the other.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

Stefan Blankenberg,Moritz Seiffert,Reinhard Vonthein,Helmut Baumgartner,Sabine Bleiziffer,Michael A Borger,Yeong-Hoon Choi,Peter Clemmensen,Jochen Cremer,Martin Czerny,Nina Diercks,Ingo Eitel,Stephan Ensminger,Derk Frank,Norbert Frey,Andreas Hagendorff,Christian Hagl,Christian Hamm,Utz Kappert,Matthias Karck,Won-Keun Kim,Inke R König,Markus Krane,Ulf Landmesser,Axel Linke,Lars S Maier,Steffen Massberg,Franz-Josef Neumann,Hermann Reichenspurner,Tanja K Rudolph,Christof Schmid,Holger Thiele,Raphael Twerenbold,Thomas Walther,Dirk Westermann,Erion Xhepa,Andreas Ziegler,Volkmar Falk,DEDICATE-DZHK6 Trial Investigators,Jörg W Schröder,Rüdiger Autschbach,Anno Diegeler,Sebastian Kerber,René Schramm,Tanja K Rudolf,Mohammad Sherif,Verena Stangl,Stephan Kische,Hüseyin Ince,Christian Butter,Johannes Albes,Justus Strauch,Andreas Mügge,Oliver Ritter,Tobias Zeus,Artur Lichtenberg,Stephan Achenbach,Oliver Dewald,Tienush Rassaf,Markus Kamler,David Leistner,Constantin von Zur Mühlen,Wolfgang Bothe,Oliver Dörr,Peter Roth,Hassina Baraki,Tim Seidler,Alexander Kaminski,Marcus Dörr,Britt Hofmann,Daniel Sedding,Lenard Conradi,Johann Bauersachs,Fabio Ius,Anna Meyer,Florian Leuschner,Christian Schulze,Torsten Doenst,Jörg Jöckel,Richard Feyrer,Elmar Kuhn,Stephan Baldus,Michael Borger,George Awad,Rüdiger Braun-Dullaeus,Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben,Daniel-Sebastian Dohle,Stephanie Voss,Michael Joner,Sven Martens,Lars Maier,Raffi Bekeredjian,Ulrich Franke,Wolfgang Rottbauer,Andreas Liebold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2400685

2024-05-02

Abstract:Background: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. Methods: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. Results: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. Conclusions: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).
800.22 Transcatheter vs. Surgical Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis with Small Annulus: A Meta-Analytical Review of Two-Year Outcomes

R. Ellauzi,A. Kumar,M. Ismayl,I. Hamza,T. Hamza,N. Anavekar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2024.01.247

IF: 11.075

2024-02-28

JACC Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:The optimal approach for severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small aortic annulus (SAA) remains uncertain when comparing transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Omar Hamodat,Saif Almuzainy,Salma Nizar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37616/2212-5043.1393

2024-09-26

Abstract:Objectives: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Methodology: We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed. Results: A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR. Conclusion: TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.
Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Silvia Mas-Peiro,Stephan Fichtlscherer,Claudia Walther,Mariuca Vasa-Nicotera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.01.10

2020-04-01

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease worldwide. With transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being increasingly expanded to lower-risk populations, several challenging issues remain to be solved. The present review aims at discussing modern approaches to such issues as well as the current status of TAVR. TAVR has undergone several developments in the recent years: an increased use of transfemoral access, the development of prostheses in order to adapt to challenging anatomies, improved delivery systems with repositioning features, and outer skirts aiming at reducing paravalvular leak. The indication of TAVR is increasingly being expanded to patients with lower surgical risk. The main clinical trials supporting such expansion are reviewed and the latest data on low-risk patients are discussed. A number of challenges need still to be addressed and are also reviewed in this paper: the need for updated international guidelines including the latest evidence; a reduction of main complications such as permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and stroke (and its potential prevention by using anti-embolic protection devices); the appropriate role of TAVR in patients with concomitant cardiac ischemic disease; and durability of bio-prosthetic implanted valves. Finally, the future perspectives for TAVR use and next device developments are discussed.

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

Nidal Jammoul,Valentin Dupasquier,Mariama Akodad,Pierre-Alain Meunier,Lionel Moulis,Sonia Soltani,Jean-Christophe Macia,Pierre Robert,Laurent Schmutz,Matthieu Steinecker,Christophe Piot,Frederic Targosz,Henri Benkemoun,Benoît Lattuca,François Roubille,Guillaume Cayla,Florence Leclercq

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2024.01.005

IF: 5.099

2024-04-01

American Heart Journal

Abstract: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.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems

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

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

Update of Transcatheter Valve Treatment

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Stable incidence and outcomes for patients with incident aortic stenosis: how can we translate excellent trial data into improved clinical outcomes in the population?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): state of the art techniques and future perspectives

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes, Indications, Complications, and Innovations

Outcomes after transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation: long-term findings from the European ROUTE†

Long-term outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves: Insights from the OBSERVANT study

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

Clinical Outcomes With a Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prosthesis: The International FORWARD Study

More questions than answers after NOTION-2

Percutaneous Balloon–Expandable Stent Implantation to Treat Transverse Aortic Arch Obstruction: Medium- to Long-Term Outcomes of a Retrospective Multicenter Study

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: comparison of results from randomized controlled trials and real-world data

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

800.22 Transcatheter vs. Surgical Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis with Small Annulus: A Meta-Analytical Review of Two-Year Outcomes

Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review

Current issues in transcatheter aortic valve replacement

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