Long-term clinical outcome and performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a self-expandable bioprosthesis.

AIMS In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) replacement determined a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data on long-term TAV performance are still limited. We sought to evaluate the clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the CoreValve self-expandable valve up to 8-year follow-up (FU). METHODS AND RESULTS  Nine hundred and ninety inoperable or high-risk patients were treated with the CoreValve TAV in eight Italian Centres from June 2007 to December 2011. The median FU was 4.4 years (interquartile range 1.4-6.7 years). Longest FU reached 11 years. A total of 728 died within 8-year FU (78.3% mortality from Kaplan-Meier curve analysis). A significant functional improvement was observed in the majority of patients and maintained over time, with 79.3% of surviving patients still classified New York Heart Association class ≤ II at 8 years. Echocardiographic data showed that the mean transprosthetic aortic gradient remained substantially unchanged (9 ± 4 mmHg at discharge, 9 ± 5 mmHg at 8 years, P = 0.495). The rate of Grade 0/1 paravalvular leak was consistent during FU with no significant change from post-procedure to FU ≥5 years in paired analysis (P = 0.164). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) and late bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) were defined according to a modification of the 2017 EAPCI/ESC/EACTS criteria. In cumulative incidence functions at 8 years, moderate and severe SVD were 3.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-4.3%] and 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-3.9%), respectively, while late BVF was 2.5% (95% CI 1.2-5%). CONCLUSION While TAVs are questioned about long-term performance and durability, the results of the present research provide reassuring 8-year evidence on the CoreValve first-generation self-expandable bioprosthesis.

[1]  M. De Carlo,et al.  Long-term results and durability of the CoreValve transcatheter aortic bioprosthesis: outcomes beyond five years. , 2019, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[2]  D. Capodanno,et al.  Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  S. Anderson,et al.  Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  P. Leprince,et al.  Five-Year Clinical Outcome and Valve Durability After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients: FRANCE-2 Registry , 2018, Circulation.

[5]  S. Buccheri,et al.  Incidence of Long‐Term Structural Valve Dysfunction and Bioprosthetic Valve Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , 2018, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[6]  T. Lüscher,et al.  INTERVENT IONS FOR VALVULAR D ISEASE AND HEART FA ILURE , 2018 .

[7]  A. Cribier,et al.  Assessment of structural valve deterioration of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic balloon-expandable valves using the new European consensus definition. , 2018, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[8]  R. Lange,et al.  Beyond the five-year horizon: long-term outcome of high-risk and inoperable patients undergoing TAVR with first-generation devices. , 2018, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[9]  J. Oh,et al.  Early Outcomes With the Evolut PRO Repositionable Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve With Pericardial Wrap. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[10]  D. Adams,et al.  5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  B. Prendergast,et al.  Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Societ , 2017, European heart journal.

[12]  A. Haverich,et al.  Long-term results of the Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis in over 800 patients: limited durability and mechanisms of dysfunction† , 2017, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[13]  P. Wenaweser,et al.  Final 5-year clinical and echocardiographic results for treatment of severe aortic stenosis with a self-expanding bioprosthesis from the ADVANCE Study , 2017, European heart journal.

[14]  Andrew S. Mugglin,et al.  Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic‐Valve Replacement in Intermediate‐Risk Patients , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[16]  A. Kirtane,et al.  Trends in Complications and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Experience From the PARTNER Continued Access Registry. , 2016, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[17]  I. Meredith,et al.  Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis With a Novel Resheathable Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve System. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[18]  A. Colombo,et al.  5-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With CoreValve Prosthesis. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[19]  M. Mack,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 , 2015, The Lancet.

[20]  H. Gray,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the United KingdomCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE , 2015 .

[21]  T. Bourguignon,et al.  Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[22]  J. Serfaty,et al.  Early Structural Valve Deterioration of Mitroflow Aortic Bioprosthesis: Mode, Incidence, and Impact on Outcome in a Large Cohort of Patients , 2014, Circulation.

[23]  J. Coselli,et al.  Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

[25]  Anson Cheung,et al.  5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[26]  M. Mack,et al.  Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

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

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

[29]  S. Armstrong,et al.  Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[30]  G. Gerosa,et al.  Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. , 2006, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.