The balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve is superior to the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation

Comparison of Balloon-Expandable Valve and Self-Expandable Valve in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Patient-Specific Numerical Study

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive strategy for the treatment of aortic stenosis. The complex post-operative complications of TAVR were related to the type of implanted prosthetic valve, and the deep mechanism of this relationship may guide the clinical pre-operative planning. The purpose of this study was to develop a numerical method of TAVR to compare the outcome difference between balloon-expandable valve and self-expandable valve and predict the post-operative results. A complete patient-specific aortic model was reconstructed. Two prosthetic valves (balloon-expandable valve and self-expandable valve) were introduced to simulate the implantation procedure, and post-procedural function was studied with fluid-structure interaction method, respectively. Results showed similar stress distribution for two valves, but higher peak stress for balloon-expandable valve model. Compared with the self-expandable valve, the balloon-expandable valve was associated with a better circular cross-section and smaller paravalvular gaps area. Hemodynamic parameters like cardiac output, mean transvalvular pressure difference and effective orifice area (EOA) of the balloon-expandable valve model were better than those of the self-expandable valve model. Significant outcome difference was found for two prosthetic valves. Balloon-expandable valve may effectively decrease the risk and degree of post-operative paravalvular leak, while self-expandable valve was conducive to lower stroke risk due to lower aortic stress. The numerical TAVR simulation process may become an assistant tool for prosthesis selection in pre-operative planning and post-operative prediction.

Predictors for the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive treatment than surgery for severe aortic stenosis. However, its use is restricted by the fact that many patients eventually require permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). This meta-analysis was performed to identify predictors of post-TAVR PPMI.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the pooling analysis after quality assessment.

RESULTS

After pooling 67 studies on post-TAVR PPMI risk in 97,294 patients, balloon-expandable valve use was negatively correlated with PPMI risk compared with self-expandable valve (SEV) use (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.53). Meta-regression analysis revealed that history of coronary artery bypass grafting and higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score increased the risk of PPMI with SEV utilization. Patients with pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormalities in 28 pooled studies also had a higher risk of PPMI (OR: 2.33, 95% CI: 1.90-2.86). Right bundle branch block (OR: 5.2, 95% CI: 4.37-6.18) and first-degree atrioventricular block (OR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) also increased PPMI risk. Although the trans-femoral approach was positively correlated with PPMI risk, the trans-apical pathway showed no statistical difference to the trans-femoral pathway. The approach did not increase PPMI risk in patients with STS scores >8. Patient-prosthesis mismatch did not influence post-TAVR PPMI risk (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.67-1.16). We also analyzed implantation depth and found no difference between patients with PPMI after TAVR and those without.

CONCLUSIONS

SEV selection, pre-existing cardiac conduction abnormality, and trans-femoral pathway selection are positively correlated with PPMI after TAVR. Pre-existing left bundle branch block, patient-prosthesis mismatch, and implantation depth did not affect the risk of PPMI after TAVR.

Comparison of infective endocarditis risk between balloon and self-expandable valves following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to compare incidence of IE between BE and SE valves by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2019. Included studies were published observational studies that compared the risk of IE among patients undergoing TAVR employing BE versus SE valves, using the random-effects to calculate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Ten cohort studies from April 2013 to November 2019 were included in this meta-analysis involving 13,478 subjects (6289 SE and 7189 BE types). Our study showed no statistical difference in IE rates between each type of valves (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.68-1.35, p = 0.801 with I2 = 14.7%). There was no difference in IE rate between BE and SE valves following TAVR. Further studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Clinical outcomes of self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable TAVI for severe aortic stenosis

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). There is limited data exploring differences in outcomes post-TAVI SEV vs. BEV. This study compared procedural success and 30-d clinical outcomes self-expandable valves (SEV), vs. balloon-expandable valves (BEV) for patients with severe AS.Methods: Retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients receiving TAVI at St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne between August 2009 and May 2018. The primary endpoints included procedural success, clinical outcomes and complication rates at 30-d.Results: Out of 151 patients undergoing TAVI, 70 received (46.3%) SEV (Medtronic CoreValve & Evolut-R) and 81 (53.6%) BEV (Edwards SAPIEN-XT & S3). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk score did not differ between the groups, SEV (83.6 ± 4.9 years, STS 4.4 ± 3.8) compared to BEV (82.3 ± 5.8 years, STS 4.9 ± 4.9). Procedural success was similar SEV 67 (95.7%) vs. BEV 78 (96.3%). Rates of ≥ moderate paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) at 30-d were significantly higher in SEV compared to BEV (6.7 vs. 0.0%; p = .02). SEV patients had higher rates of pacemaker insertion (36.4 vs. 9.5%; p = .001) and stroke rates (12.4 vs. 1.4%; p = .04) compared to BEV patients. The difference in 30-d mortality between the two groups was similar (SEV 4.6% vs. BEV 1.3%; p = .23).Conclusions: This real-world retrospective analysis demonstrates higher rates of ≥ moderate PAR, stroke and pacemaker insertion with SEV compared to BEV at 30 d post-TAVI for severe symptomatic AS.

Randomised comparison of a balloon-expandable and self-expandable valve with quantitative assessment of aortic regurgitation using magnetic resonance imaging

Introduction

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective treatment for inoperable, intermediate- or high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and has been associated with excellent clinical outcomes. A clinically relevant remaining problem is aortic regurgitation (AR) post-TAVI, which is associated with increased mortality. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomised trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a first-generation self-expandable valve (SEV; CoreValve) and a third-generation balloon-expandable valve (BEV; Sapien 3) with respect to clinical outcomes and AR as determined quantitatively by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

The ELECT study was an investigator-initiated, single-centre trial involving patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and with a clinical indication for transfemoral TAVI. Fifty-six patients were randomly assigned to the BEV or SEV group.

Results

AR determined quantitatively by MRI was lower in the BEV than in the SEV group [regurgitant fraction: 1.1% (0–8.0) vs 8.7% (3.0–14.8) for SEV; p = 0.01]. Secondary endpoints according to the criteria of the Second Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC-2) showed BEV to have better early safety [0 (0%) vs 8 (30%); p = 0.002] at 30 days and a lower risk of stroke [0 (0%) vs 5 (21%); p = 0.01], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [0 (0%) vs 10 (38%); p < 0.001] or death [0 (0%) vs 5 (19%); p = 0.02] in the 1st year compared with SEV.

Conclusions

The use of the latest generation of BEV was associated with less AR as quantitatively assessed by MRI. Although the use of MRI to quantify AR is not feasible in daily clinical practice, it should be considered as a surrogate endpoint for clinical outcomes in comparative studies of valves for TAVI.

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01982032.

Comparative Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable S3 Versus Self-Expanding Evolut Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

To date, comparisons between the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien S3 (S3) versus the self-expanding Evolut R or PRO (Evolut) valves have been limited with respect to procedural outcomes. We aim to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency of the S3 versus the Medtronic Evolut bioprostheses in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures performed through the transfemoral approach with either S3 or Evolut at our hospital between September 2015 and January 2019. A total of 581 patients were included. There were no significant differences between S3 (n = 452) and Evolut (n = 129) concerning in-hospital or 30-day safety outcomes. S3 was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy times, lower fluoroscopy Air Kerma, and higher contrast use. S3 had lower postprocedure aortic valve area (1.71 ± 0.45 vs 1.84 ± 0.50 cm², p = 0.004), larger peak gradient at 30 days (10.7 ± 3.8 vs 7.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg, p <0.001), and lower aortic regurgitation (AR) rates postprocedure (47% vs 33%, p = 0.024) and at 30 days (50% vs 33%, p = 0.008), driven by mild AR. Device type was an independent predictor of AR postprocedure and at 30 days. Patients with ≥mild AR were more likely to have had Evolut valves (odds ratio = 2.94, p <0.001), especially in larger valves (>26 mm). Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was higher in S3 (14.8% vs 7.9%, p <0.001). In conclusion, S3 is associated with less radiation exposure, higher contrast use, and lower incidence of AR at 30 days. Alternately, S3 has a higher transaortic gradient at 30 days, and higher levels of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Network meta-analysis of new-generation valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

To comprehensively compare and rank new-generation valves (NGVs) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of all eligible comparative studies. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through September 2018. We included all studies comparing 4 NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3) and an early generation valve (CoreValve) as the reference transcatheter heart valve (THV) each other and reporting at least one of postprocedural incidence of all-cause death, ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation (AR), and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI). To compare different THVs, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood NMA based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. Using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each THV was estimated and the hierarchy of competing THVs was obtained. We identified 29 eligible studies enrolling a total of 17,817 patients. In accordance with the estimated SUCRA probability, SAPIEN 3 was the best effective for a reduction in death (80.6%) and the second best for decreased ≥ moderate AR (74.4%) and PMI (74.1%) compared with the other THVs. Lotus was ranked the best for a reduction in ≥ moderate AR (94.5%;), whereas the worst for decreased PMI (1.2%) and the second worst for a reduction in mortality (38.6%). ACURATE was the best for decreased PMI (99.2%) and the second best for a reduction in mortality (77.9%). As a whole, SAPIEN 3 may be the best effective NGV among the 4 examined NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3).

Cost effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive treatment for elderly patients with aortic stenosis. However, the cost of TAVI is a major issue. This study analyzed the cost effectiveness of TAVI in Japan.

METHODS

We developed an economic model to evaluate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and medical therapy over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of Japanese public healthcare payers. The first model compared transapical or transfemoral TAVI with Sapien valve implantation and medical therapy in inoperable patients. The second model compared transfemoral TAVI with Sapien XT valve implantation and SAVR in operable patients with intermediate surgical risk. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of 5,000,000yen per QALY, and assessed the cost-effectiveness probability with 100,000 simulations. We performed a broad sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertainty on our results.

RESULTS

Among inoperable patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVI compared with medical therapy was 3,918,808yen per QALY. In operable patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVI compared with SAVR was 7,523,821yen per QALY. The cost-effectiveness probability of TAVI was 60% for inoperable patients and 46% for operable patients. Among inoperable patients, the cost-effective threshold of TAVI was <7,759,085yen. Among operable patients, the cost-effective threshold of TAVI was <5,427,439yen.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that TAVI has good cost effectiveness for inoperable patients, but not for operable patients.

Resource utilization and procedure-related costs associated with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement

AIMS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to surgical valve replacement for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). This study assessed the impact of changing from a self-expandable (SE) valve to a balloon-expandable (BE) valve on healthcare resource use and procedural costs in a population of inoperable AS patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective single center study, data for 195 patients who received either an SE or a BE valve between 2010-2014 were collected. Procedural and post-procedural healthcare resource use and cost parameters were determined for the two groups.

RESULTS

The study showed that overall procedural time, including time required by medical personnel, was significantly shorter for TAVI using a BE compared with an SE valve. Post-surgery, patients in the BE valve group had significantly shorter hospital stays than the SE valve group, including significantly fewer days spent in the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, trends towards reduced 30-day mortality, incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation, and incidence of blood transfusion were observed in the BE valve group compared with the SE valve group. Finally, total procedural costs were 24% higher in the SE compared with the BE valve group.

LIMITATIONS

The BE valve data were acquired in a single year, whereas the SE valve data were from a 5-year period. However, a year-by-year analysis of patient characteristics and study outcomes for the SE valve group showed few significant differences over this 5-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, changing from an SE to a BE valve for TAVI in patients with severe AS reduced both healthcare resource use and procedure-related costs, while maintaining patient safety. For healthcare providers, this could increase efficiency and capacity within the healthcare system, with the added advantage of reducing costs.

Rationale and design of the Edwards SAPIEN-3 periprosthetic leakage evaluation versus Medtronic CoreValve in transfemoral aortic valve implantation (ELECT) trial : A randomised comparison of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve prostheses

Background and objectives

Periprosthetic aortic regurgitation (PPR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains an important issue associated with impaired long-term outcomes. The current randomised study aims to evaluate potential differences between the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN-3 and the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve system with the main focus on post-TAVI PPR by means of novel imaging endpoints, and an additional focus on other clinical endpoints.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint of this study is quantitative assessment of the severity of post-procedural PPR using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Several other novel imaging modalities (X-ray contrast angiography, echocardiography) are used as secondary imaging modalities for the assessment of PPR following TAVI. Secondary objectives of the study include clinical outcomes such as cerebral and kidney injury related to TAVI, and quality of life.

Methods and design

The ELECT study is a single-centre, prospective, two-armed randomised controlled trial. For the purpose of this study, 108 consecutive adult patients suitable for transfemoral TAVI will be randomly allocated to receive the SAPIEN-3 (n = 54) or the CoreValve system (n = 54).

Discussion

The ELECT trial is the first randomised controlled trial to quantitatively compare the extent of post-TAVI PPR between the SAPIEN-3 and CoreValve. Furthermore, it will evaluate potential differences between the two prostheses with regard to mid-term clinical outcome and quality of life.