Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.

AIMS Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as established treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Technical developments in valve design have addressed previous limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leakage. However, there are only limited data available for the comparison of newer generation self-expandable valve (SEV) and balloon-expandable valve (BEV). METHODS AND RESULTS SOLVE-TAVI is a multicentre, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI comparing SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The primary efficacy composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate/severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.4% of SEV patients and 26.1% of BEV patients meeting the prespecified criteria of equivalence [rate difference -2.39 (90% confidence interval, CI -9.45 to 4.66); Pequivalence = 0.04]. Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% vs. 2.3% [rate difference -0.93 (90% CI -4.78 to 2.92); Pequivalence < 0.001], stroke 0.5% vs. 4.7% [rate difference 4.20 (90% CI 0.12 to 8.27); Pequivalence = 0.003], moderate/severe paravalvular leak 3.4% vs. 1.5% [rate difference -1.89 (90% CI -5.86 to 2.08); Pequivalence = 0.0001], and permanent pacemaker implantation 23.0% vs. 19.2% [rate difference -3.85 (90% CI -10.41 to 2.72) in SEV vs. BEV patients; Pequivalence = 0.06]. CONCLUSION In patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, newer generation SEV and BEV are equivalent for the primary valve-related efficacy endpoint. These findings support the safe application of these newer generation percutaneous valves in the majority of patients with some specific preferences based on individual valve anatomy.

[1]  B. Prendergast,et al.  Safety and efficacy of a self-expanding versus a balloon-expandable bioprosthesis for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2019, The Lancet.

[2]  W. Rottbauer,et al.  Rate of peri-procedural stroke observed with cerebral embolic protection during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a patient-level propensity-matched analysis , 2018, European heart journal.

[3]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement with a Balloon‐Expandable Valve in Low‐Risk Patients , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement with a Self‐Expanding Valve in Low‐Risk Patients , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  W. Rottbauer,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Next-Generation Self-Expanding Devices: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Comparison of Evolut PRO Versus Acurate neo Transcatheter Heart Valves. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[6]  H. Eggebrecht,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Germany: more than 100,000 procedures and now the standard of care for the elderly. , 2019, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[7]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Comparison of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from the CENTER-collaboration , 2019, European heart journal.

[8]  S. Windecker,et al.  1-Year Outcomes With the Evolut R Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve: From the International FORWARD Study. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Pacemaker implantation rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with early and new-generation devices: a systematic review , 2018, European heart journal.

[10]  M. Buchbinder,et al.  Effect of Mechanically Expanded vs Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement on Mortality and Major Adverse Clinical Events in High-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial , 2018, JAMA.

[11]  C. Hamm,et al.  Outcome after transvascular transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 2016 , 2017, European heart journal.

[12]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. , 2017, European heart journal.

[13]  S. Windecker,et al.  Clinical Outcomes With a Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prosthesis: The International FORWARD Study. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  Patrick W Serruys,et al.  Adjudicating paravalvular leaks of transcatheter aortic valves: a critical appraisal. , 2016, European heart journal.

[15]  M. Mack,et al.  Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  K. Kuck,et al.  1-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expandable Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  M. Mack,et al.  Paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Edwards sapien valve in the PARTNER trial: characterizing patients and impact on outcomes. , 2015, European heart journal.

[18]  C. Hamm,et al.  Qualitätskriterien zur Durchführung der transvaskulären Aortenklappenimplantation (TAVI) , 2015, Der Kardiologe.

[19]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of a next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  Maurice Buchbinder,et al.  Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J. Mehilli,et al.  Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. , 2014, JAMA.

[22]  P. Serruys,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN versus the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving system devices: a multicenter collaborative study: the PRAGMATIC Plus Initiative (Pooled-RotterdAm-Milano-Toulouse In Collaboration). , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  M. Mack,et al.  Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. , 2012, European heart journal.

[24]  Stuart J Pocock,et al.  Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  P. Serruys,et al.  Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium , 2010, European heart journal.

[26]  S. Pocock,et al.  Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  E. Mascha.  Equivalence and noninferiority testing in anesthesiology research. , 2010, Anesthesiology.

[28]  Theodore Speroff,et al.  Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: Validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) , 2001, Critical care medicine.