Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: The OCEAN-TAVI registry
- PMID: 32926552
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29259
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with Evolut R versus Sapien 3 in Japanese patients with a small aortic annulus: The OCEAN-TAVI registry
Abstract
Objectives: To compare safety, efficacy, and hemodynamics of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using self-expanding and balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in patients with a small aortic annulus.
Background: Few studies have directly compared TAVR outcomes using third-generation THVs, focusing on patients with small aortic annuli.
Methods: In a multicenter TAVR registry, we analyzed data from 576 patients with a small annulus and who underwent transfemoral TAVR using third-generation THVs. Propensity score matching was used to adjust baseline clinical characteristics.
Results: The device success rate in the overall cohort was 92.0% (Evolut R: 92.1% vs. Sapien 3:92.0%, p = 0.96). One year after TAVR, patients treated with Evolut R maintained a lower mean pressure gradient (mPG) and a higher indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) in the matched cohort {mPG: 9.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 6.0-11.9] vs. 12.0 [IQR: 9.9-16.3] mmHg, p < .001; iEOA: 1.20 [IQR: 1.01-1.46] vs. 1.08 [IQR: 0.90-1.28] cm2 /m2 , p < .001}. However, no significant differences were reported in the incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch and aortic regurgitation at 1 year. Furthermore, both groups showed comparable outcomes with no differences in terms of all-cause mortality (log-lank test, p = .81).
Conclusions: TAVR for patients with a small annulus using third-generation THVs was associated with high device success. Evolut R seems to be superior to Sapien 3 in hemodynamic performance for patients with a small annulus and body surface area up to 1 year after TAVR. Nevertheless, all-cause mortality at 1 year was similar between both groups.
Keywords: indexed effective orifice area; prosthesis-patient mismatch; transcatheter heart valves; valve-in-valve.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Kalavrouziotis D, Rodes-Cabau J, Bagur R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1016-1024.
-
- Guimaraes L, Voisine P, Mohammadi S, et al. Valve hemodynamics following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125(6):956-963.
-
- Pibarot P, Weissman NJ, Stewart WJ, et al. Incidence and sequelae of prosthesis-patient mismatch in transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a PARTNER trial cohort-a analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1323-1334.
-
- Kamioka N, Arita T, Hanyu M, et al. Valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for a small aortic annulus. Int Heart J. 2019;60:86-92.
-
- Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation within degenerated aortic surgical bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 valve-in-valve registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2253-2262.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
