Mid-term outcomes of Sapien 3 versus Perimount Magna Ease for treatment of severe aortic stenosis

Background

There is limited information on the longer-term outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with new-generation prostheses compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of this study was to compare the mid-term outcomes after TAVR with Sapien 3 and SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprostheses for severe aortic stenosis.

Methods

In a retrospective study, we included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with Sapien 3 or SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease bioprosthesis between January 2008 and October 2017 from the nationwide FinnValve registry. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics. The Kaplan-Meir method was used to estimate late mortality.

Results

A total of 2000 patients were included (689 in the TAVR cohort and 1311 in the SAVR cohort). Propensity score matching resulted in 308 pairs (STS score, TAVR 3.5 ± 2.2% vs. SAVR 3.5 ± 2.8%, p = 0.918). In-hospital mortality was 3.6% after SAVR and 1.3% after TAVR (p = 0.092). Stroke, acute kidney injury, bleeding and atrial fibrillation were significantly more frequent after SAVR, but higher rate of vascular complications was observed after TAVR. The cumulative incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation at 4 years was 13.9% in the TAVR group and 6.9% in the SAVR group (p = 0.0004). At 4-years, all-cause mortality was 20.6% for SAVR and 25.9% for TAVR (p = 0.910). Four-year rates of coronary revascularization, prosthetic valve endocarditis and repeat aortic valve intervention were similar between matched cohorts.

Conclusions

The Sapien 3 bioprosthesis achieves comparable midterm outcomes to a surgical bioprosthesis with proven durability such as the Perimount Magna Ease. However, the Sapien 3 bioprosthesis was associated with better early outcome.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915.

Favorable outcome of cancer patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study from the nationwide FinnValve registry on 2130 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR for severe AS from January 2008 to October 2017.

RESULTS

In this cohort, 417 patients (19.6%) had history of cancer and 113 (5.3%) had an active malignancy at the time of TAVR. Patients with any malignancy had similar late mortality than patients without any malignancy (at 7 years, 65.1% vs. 59.3%, adjusted HR 1.105, 95%CI 0.892-1.369). At 7 years, cancer-related mortality was 22.5% among patients with preoperative cancer, and 11.0% in those without preoperative cancer (p < 0.0001). Among cancer patients, 18 died of the same disease (at 7 years, mortality 12.5%). Active malignancy was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.100, 95%CI 0.757-1.599). However, patients with blood malignancies had a significantly increased risk of mortality (at 4-year, 53.5% vs. 35.4%, adjusted HR 2.029, 95%CI 1.328-3.098).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis showed that, when properly selected by the heart team and oncologists, most cancer patients undergoing TAVR can achieve a good survival and eventually die of other diseases. Blood malignancies seem to carry a poor prognosis in these patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03385915; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385915.

Comparison of Survival of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients Without Coronary Artery Disease

Increasing data support transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as a valid option over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) also in patients with low operative risk. However, limited data exist on the outcome of TAVI and SAVR in low-risk patients without coronary artery disease (CAD). The FinnValve registry included data on 6463 patients who underwent TAVI or SAVR with bioprosthesis between 2008 and 2017. Herein, we evaluated the outcome of low operative risk as defined by STS-PROM score <3% and absence of CAD, previous stroke and other relevant co-morbidities. Only patients who underwent TAVI with third-generation prostheses and SAVR with Perimount Magna Ease or Trifecta prostheses were included in this analysis. The primary endpoints were 30-day and 3-year all-cause mortality. Overall, 1,006 patients (175 TAVI patients and 831 SAVR patients) met the inclusion criteria of this analysis. Propensity score matching resulted in 140 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 2.1% in both TAVI and SAVR cohorts (p = 1.00) and 3-year mortality was 17.0% after TAVI and 14.6% after SAVR (p = 0.805). Lower rates of bleeding and atrial fibrillation, and shorter hospital stay were observed after TAVI. The need of new permanent pacemaker implantation and the incidence of early stroke did not differ between groups. In conclusion, TAVI using third-generation prostheses achieved similar early and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients without CAD.

Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk

IMPORTANCE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.

EXPOSURES

Primary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

Predicting arterial stiffness with ambulatory blood pressure: an 11-year follow-up

No prospective data have been published on whether ambulatory blood pressure (BP) works better than casual measurements in predicting arterial stiffness. This study with 11-year follow-up was launched to evaluate the usefulness of ambulatory intra-arterial BP in predicting pulse wave velocity (PWV). Ninety-seven previously healthy men were recruited from a routine physical check-up at baseline. BP was measured with standard cuff and intra-arterial ambulatory methods. Sixty-seven subjects with no antihypertensive medication were enrolled for a visit after a follow-up of 11 years. Arterial stiffness was estimated with PWV derived with impedance cardiography. Ambulatory 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBP) (r = 0.30, P = 0.01), 24-h mean arterial pressure (r = 0.27, P = 0.03), 24-h pulse pressure (r = 0.27, P = 0.03) and daytime SBP (r = 0.26, P = 0.03) were the best BP variables in predicting future PWV. Casual BP values did not bear significant correlations with future PWV. In hierarchical regression analysis, the best predictive value for future PWV was achieved with the model including ambulatory 24-h SBP, smoking (number of cigarettes) and age (adjusted R(2) = 0.26). In conclusion, to our knowledge, this is the only prospective follow-up study to show that ambulatory BP is superior to casual BP measurement in predicting future PWV.

The influence of hemodynamic factors on left ventricular mass

We evaluated the relationship between the variability in the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and different hemodynamic factors. LVMI was associated with blood pressure and, in one subgroup, strongly to arterial pulse wave velocity (PWV). High physical activity was connected to increased LVMI, and a combination of low stroke index (SI) and high heart rate (HR) to decreased LVMI.