Dataset Information

Propensity-matched comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a Chinese population.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have shown promising results in Western populations. Herein, we comparatively evaluated their hemodynamics and early clinical outcomes in a Chinese population.

Methods

One hundred seventy-eight patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who had undergone transfemoral TAVR using SEV (n=153; Venus-A, 97; VitaFlow, 56) or BEV (n=25; Sapien3) from September 2020 to April 2021 were retrospectively enrolled, and 25 pairs were propensity-score matched for 10 baseline variables. The primary study outcomes were aortic valve hemodynamics and postoperative complications at discharge and 3-month follow-up.

Results

TAVR was successful in all patients. Compared with SEV group, the BEV group had similarly distributed baseline characteristics, procedural time, hospital stay, new pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular regurgitation grade. We also observed that the BEV group had lower rates of balloon pre-dilation (60% vs. 92%, P=0.018), post-dilation (0 vs. 20%, P=0.050) and second valve implantation (0 vs. 24%, P=0.022); higher mean transaortic gradient (14.3±6.1 vs. 10.8±4.9, P=0.030) and proportion of patients with elevated gradients (20% vs. 0, P=0.050) at discharge; and similar rehospitalization, mean transaortic gradient, new pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular regurgitation grade than the SEV group at the 3-month follow-up. There were no deaths in either group. However, the proportion of patients with elevated gradients in SEV group was higher at 3 months than before discharge (24% vs. 0, P=0.022).

Conclusions

BEV and SEV for transfemoral TAVR appear comparably safe and effective, with high device success and favorable 3-month clinical outcomes. However, the transaortic gradient and new pacemaker implantation in the SEV group increased during follow-up, warranting larger studies with longer-term follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Ou-Yang WB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8848425 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Propensity-matched comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a Chinese population.

Ou-Yang Wen-Bin WB Wang Wei W Dong Jie J Xie Yong-Quan YQ Wan Jun-Yi JY Yue Zi-Qi ZQ Wang Shou-Zheng SZ Meng Hong H Wang Xu X Xu Dong-Hui DH Zhang Feng-Wen FW Dong Jing J Pan Xiang-Bin XB Zhang Ge-Jun GJ

Annals of translational medicine 20220101 2

<h4>Background</h4>Balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have shown promising results in Western populations. Herein, we comparatively evaluated their hemodynamics and early clinical outcomes in a Chinese population.<h4>Methods</h4>One hundred seventy-eight patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who had undergone transfemoral TAVR using SEV (n=153; Venus-A, 97; VitaFlow, 56) or BEV (n=25; Sapien3) from September 2020 ...[more]

PMID: 35282054

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical consequences of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently in the focus of clinical research. Patients with small aortic annulus are at higher risk to display PPM. Data on incidence and clinical consequences of PPM after TAVR with either balloon-expandable (BEV) or self-expanding (SEV) transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annulus are sparse.MethodsPatients with small aortic annulus (perimeter < 72 mm or aortic annulus area < 400 mm2) who underwent BEV or SEV with contemporary transcatheter heart valve types were identified from the institutional TAVR database. Propensity score matching was applied for imbalanced baseline characteristics between patients undergoing BEV or SEV. Echocardiography and clinical follow-up beyond 3 years was reported following VARC-3 recommendations. Primary endpoint was the incidence of pre-discharge PPM and its association with 3-year mortality.ResultsFrom a total of 507 patients with small aortic annulus, 192 matched patient pairs with SEV or BEV were identified. Mean age was 81 ± 7 (SEV) vs. 81 ± 6 (BEV) years (p = 0.5), aortic annulus perimeter was 69 ± 3 vs.69 ± 3 mm, (p = 0.8), annulus area was 357 ± 27 vs.357 ± 27 mm2 (p = 0.8), and EuroScore II was 5.8 ± 6.6 vs.5.7 ± 7.2 (p = 0.9). SEV resulted in less moderate (20% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) and severe pre-discharge PPM (9% vs.18%, p < 0.001) compared to BEV. At discharge (7 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 9 mmHg, p = 0.003) and at 1-year follow-up (7 ± 5 vs.13 ± 3 mmHg, p < 0.001), SEV displayed lower mean gradients compared to BEV. Estimated survival after SEV was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80%-90%) at 1 year, 80% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 71% (95% CI: 65%-78%) at 3 years; estimated survival after BEV was 87% (95% CI: 82%-92%) at 1 year, 81% (95% CI: 75%-86%) at 2 years, and 72% (95% CI: 66%-79%) at 3 years, with no significant difference among the groups (p = 0.9) Body surface area (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), implantation of BEV (odds ratio (OR): 3.32, p < 0.001), and the absence of postdilatation (OR: 2.16, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for any PPM. At 3 years, patients without PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared with patients with ≥moderate PPM (77% vs. 67%, p = 0.03).ConclusionBEV implantation in patients with small annulus was associated with a twofold higher incidence of pre-discharge severe PPM compared to SEV implantation. Survival at 3 years after TAVR was similar after BEV and SEV. However, patients with the absence of pre-discharge PPM had a higher 3-year survival compared to patients with ≥moderate PPM.

Project description:BackgroundLimited studies have focused on the performance of self-expandable valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) in patients with dilatated ascending aorta (AA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The present study compared the performance of widely used Edwards BEVs and domestic SEVs in patients with dilatated AA among Chinese population.MethodsWe identified and reviewed 207 patients who had baseline AA diameter ≥40 mm and underwent transfemoral TAVR. Patients were divided into two groups: SEV and BEV. The SEVs were locally manufactured valves that have received Chinese regulatory approval (Venus-A, Taurus One, and VitaFlow), while the BEVs were Edwards Sapien XT and Sapien3. Procedural device success and post-procedural changes of AA diameters were compared.ResultsThe sample size of SEV group was larger than that of BEV group because BEVs were not available in China in the early clinical practice. The overall device success was slightly lower in SEV group compared with BEV group (84.2% vs. 95.8%, P=0.213). However, in the univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses, only bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) was found to be an independent risk factor for device failure (OR: 2.632, CI: 1.107-6.257, P=0.029). During the median follow-up of 21 months, no statistical difference was found between the two groups regarding the overall survival (83.1%±4.7% vs. 95.8%±4.1%, P=0.533), and no aortic dissection nor rupture was observed. In a subgroup of patients who had follow-up CTs ≥12-month intervals, the AA diameter appeared to remain stable in SEV group with an aortic expansion rate of 0 (-0.4 to 0.8) mm (P=0.102), while it slightly enlarged in BEV group with an aortic expansion rate of 0.4 (-0.4 to 0.6) mm/y (P=0.038). In addition, the AA diameter also slightly enlarged in patients with BAV [0.2 (0 to 1.0) mm/y, P=0.015], while it remained stable in patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) [0 (-0.8 to 0.6) mm/y, P=0.640].ConclusionsIn patients with dilatated AA who underwent TAVR, the type of THVs did not affect the procedural device success. BAV appeared to be a risk factor for both device failure and higher aortic expansion rate in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundCoronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rare, yet life-threatening, complication. The routine use of left main (LM) protection with or without stent placement in high-risk patients remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of LM protection during TAVR and identify anatomic factors associated with need for stent placement.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all TAVR cases (native and valve-in-valve) performed in our institution between 2014 and 2019 and identified patients who underwent LM protection with a coronary wire, balloon, and/or stent during the procedure. We compared the pre-TAVR computed tomography aortic root characteristics, procedural data, short-, and long-term outcomes among the patients who eventually received an LM stent and those who did not.ResultsAmong 1925 TAVR patients, 41 (2.1%) underwent LM protection, and 10 of them (25%) had eventually a stent placed in the LM for threatened obstruction after valve deployment. In the native TAVR group (n = 35), 8 patients underwent LM stenting. A larger TAVR prosthesis, larger annular circumference (83.8 vs 76.1 mm; P = .038), lower ratio of sinotubular junction diameter to prosthesis size (1.02 vs 1.11; P = .032), and longer left coronary cusp (15.1 vs 13.9 mm; P = .18) were associated with higher incidence of LM stenting. In the valve-in-valve TAVR group (n = 6), 5 patients had a valve-to-coronary distance of less than 4 mm, and 2 of them received an LM stent. Both stent and nonstent groups had excellent outcomes with no major adverse cardiovascular events or coronary obstruction at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 351 days, 4 patients died (9.7%) (1 in the stent and 3 in the nonstent group), without any cases of late coronary obstruction or percutaneous coronary intervention in either group.ConclusionsLM protection with a coronary guidewire, balloon, or stent is a safe and effective method of coronary protection during TAVR in appropriately selected high-risk patients. Annular circumference, prosthesis size, left coronary cusp length, LM ostial height, and ratio of sinotubular junction to prosthesis size are important predictors of stent deployment.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Dataset Information

Propensity-matched comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a Chinese population.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Propensity-matched comparison of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a Chinese population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets