Meta-analysis of short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the self-expanding Evolut R/pro valve versus the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

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.

Comparison of middle-term valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Background

This study aims to compare valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was structural valve deterioration (SVD). Secondary outcomes were bioprosthetic valve failure, reintervention, effective orifice area (EOA), mean pressure gradient, and moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR, transvalvular and/or paravalvular).

Results

Twenty-five publications from seven RCTs consisting of 7,970 patients were included in the analysis with follow-up ranges of 2-8 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to SVD [odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% CI: 0.25-2.12]. The TAVI group was reported to exhibit a statistically significant higher risk of reintervention (OR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.34-3.05) and a moderate-severe AR (OR 6.54; 95% CI: 3.92-10.91) compared with the SAVR group. A trend toward lower mean pressure gradient in the TAVI group [(mean difference (MD) -1.61; 95% CI: -3.5 to 0.28)] and significant higher EOA (MD 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.31) was noted.

Conclusion

The present data indicate that TAVI provides a comparable risk of SVD with favorable hemodynamic profile compared with SAVR. However, the higher risk of significant AR and reintervention was demonstrated.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022363060).

Comparison of outcomes of self-expanding versus balloon-expandable valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized and propensity-matched studies

BACKGROUND

The postoperative outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the new generation of self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV) remain uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to evaluate the performance of the new generation TAVR devices, with a focus on Edwards SAPIEN 3/Ultra BEV, Medtronic Evolut R/PRO SEV, and Boston ACURATE neo SEV. Our primary endpoints were mortality and complications at both 30 days and one year post-operation.

RESULTS

A total of 4 RCTs and 14 PSM studies were included. Our findings showed no significant difference between SEV and BEV regarding 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. ACURATE SEV required less permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30-day as compared to SAPIEN BEV, while Evolut SEV required a higher rate of PPI than SAPIEN BEV. The incidence of stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding (MLTB), major vascular complications (MVC), coronary artery obstruction (CAO) and acute kidney injury (AKI) did not differ significantly between the two groups. SEV had a larger effective orifice area (EOA) and lower mean transvalvular gradients (MPG) compared to BEV. However, there was an increased risk of paravalvular leakage (PVL) associated with SEV.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of 30-day mortality, stroke, bleeding, MVC, AKI, CAO, and one-year mortality, there was comparability between the two valve types following TAVR. SEV was associated with better hemodynamic outcomes, except for a higher incidence of PVL. Compared to SAPIEN BEV, ACURATE SEV had a lower risk of PPI at 30 days, while Evolut SEV was associated with a higher risk of PPI. These findings underscore the importance of personalized valve selection.

Comparison of 1-year Follow-up Echocardiographic Outcomes of Sapien 3 Versus Evolut R Bioprosthetic Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Single-center Retrospective Iranian Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to compare 1-year echocardiographic outcomes of the new generations of self-expanding (Evolut R) versus balloon-expandable (Sapien 3) bioprosthetic transcatheter aortic valves.

METHODS

In this study, gradients and flow velocities obtained from transthoracic Doppler-echocardiography were retrospectively collected from patients who underwent 2 new generations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation interventions with Sapien 3 and Evolut R valves. Patients underwent echocardiography before the procedure and at discharge, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 66 patients, 28 received Sapien 3 and 38 received Evolut R valves. Evolut R valve presented a lower mean gradient at all follow-up time points compared with Sapien 3 valves (14.4 mm Hg, 14.9 mm Hg, 15.5 mm Hg compared with 10.1 mm Hg, 11.6 mm Hg, 11.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P -values <0.001). Small valve sizes of Evolut R, including 23 and 26, had higher echocardiographic mean gradient or peak gradient at the time of discharge compared with larger valves, including sizes 29 and 34 (11.1 mm Hg and 11.2 mm Hg vs. 10.2 mm Hg, 9.1 mm Hg) and 1-year follow-up (11.0 mm Hg, 11.0 mm Hg vs. 9.9 mm Hg, 8.4 mm Hg; all P -values = 0.001). Although Sapien 3 valves demonstrated a higher peak gradient in smaller sizes at discharge (18.44 mm Hg in size 23 vs. 17.9 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg in size 26 and 29, respectively; P = 0.001), the peak gradients did not show a statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study detected significantly lower mean and peak gradients in Evolut R compared with Sapien 3 at all follow-up time points. Furthermore, smaller valve sizes were associated with significantly higher gradients at all follow-ups, regardless of the valve type.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO and the results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. (3) Results: The pooled analysis included data from eight RCTs totaling 8780 patients. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77–0.99), significant bleeding (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.25–0.59), acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40–0.69) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.19–0.43). SAVR was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complication (MVC; OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.29–3.07) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.45–3.57). (3) Conclusions: TAVI compared with SAVR during early and mid-term follow-up was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, significant bleeding, AKI and atrial fibrillation; however, it was associated with a higher risk of MVC and PPI.