Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jan 20;5(1):e000695.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2017-000695. eCollection 2018.

Early versus newer generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in routine clinical practice: a propensity score matched analysis

Thomas Pilgrim  1 , Joe K T Lee  1 , Crochan J O'Sullivan  2 , Stefan Stortecky  1 , Sara Ariotti  1 , Anna Franzone  1 , Jonas Lanz  1 , Dik Heg  3 , Masahiko Asami  1 , Fabien Praz  1 , George C M Siontis  1 , René Vollenbroich  1 , Lorenz Räber  1 , Marco Valgimigli  1 , Eva Roost  4 , Stephan Windecker  1
Affiliations

Early versus newer generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in routine clinical practice: a propensity score matched analysis

Thomas Pilgrim et al. Open Heart. .

Abstract

Aim: Contemporary data comparing early versus newer generation transcatheter heart valve (THV) devices in routine clinical practice are lacking. We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of early versus newer generation THVs in unselected patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Methods and results: We performed a propensity score matched analysis of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at a single centre with early versus newer generation devices between 2007 and 2016. Patients were matched for balloon-expandable versus self-expandable valves and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. The primary end point was the Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 early safety composite end point at 30 days. Among the 391 matched pairs, no differences between early (21.2%) and newer generation (20.8%) THVs regarding the early safety composite end point (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33, P=0.88) were observed. The rates of valve embolisation (0.8% vs 4.2%, P=0.005), bleeding events (24.8% vs 32.0%, P=0.028) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (3.1% vs 12.1%, P<0.001) were lower among patients receiving newer generation devices. Conversely, patients treated with early generation THVs less frequently experienced annulus rupture (0% vs 2.0%, P=0.008).

Conclusion: Newer compared with early generation THV devices were associated with a lower rate of valve embolisation, PVR and bleeding events.

Keywords: aortic valve disease; valvular disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of patients included into the propensity score matched analysis. *Patient censored at last scheduled or unscheduled contact. BSC, Boston Scientific; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; THV, transcatheter heart valve.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Kaplan-Meier estimates of the VARC-2 early composite safety outcome. The blue line relates to the newer generation TAVI devices; the black line relates to the early generation TAVI devices. TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; VARC, Valve Academic Research Consortium.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier estimates of the VARC-2 early composite safety outcome landmark analysis between 0 and 3 days and 4 and 30 days. The blue line relates to the newer generation TAVI devices; the black line relates to the early generation TAVI devices. TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; VARC, Valve Academic Research Consortium.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Stratified analysis for the VARC-2 early composite safety outcome. eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; VARC, Valve Academic Research Consortium.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2187–98. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:2477–84. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Deeb GM, Reardon MJ, Chetcuti S, et al. 3-Year Outcomes in High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2565–74. 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.506 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abdel-Wahab M, Comberg T, Büttner HJ, et al. Aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with balloon- and self-expandable prostheses: a pooled analysis from a 2-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:284–92. 10.1016/j.jcin.2013.11.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Belle E, Juthier F, Susen S, et al. Postprocedural aortic regurgitation in balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures: analysis of predictors and impact on long-term mortality: insights from the FRANCE2 Registry. Circulation 2014;129:1415–27. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002677 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types