Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Durability on Life Expectancy in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Background: Recent clinical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization. However, the impact of transcatheter valve durability remains uncertain. Methods: Discrete event simulation was used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were varied to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in a cohort of low-risk patients similar to those in recent trials. Discrete event simulation modeling was used to estimate the tradeoff between a less invasive procedure with unknown valve durability (TAVR) and that of a more invasive procedure with known durability (SAVR). Standardized differences were calculated, and a difference >0.10 was considered clinically significant. In the base-case analysis, patients with structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation were assumed to undergo a valve-in-valve TAVR procedure. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in younger age groups (40, 50, and 60 years). Results: Our cohort consisted of patients with aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with a mean age of 73.4±5.9 years. In the base-case scenario, the standardized difference in life expectancy was <0.10 between TAVR and SAVR until transcatheter valve prosthesis failure time was 70% shorter than that of surgical prostheses. At a transcatheter valve failure time <30% compared with surgical valves, SAVR was the preferred option. In younger patients, life expectancy was reduced when TAVR durability was 30%, 40%, and 50% shorter than that of surgical valves in 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old patients, respectively. Conclusions: According to our simulation models, the durability of TAVR valves must be 70% shorter than that of surgical valves to result in reduced life expectancy in patients with demographics similar to those of recent trials. However, in younger patients, this threshold for TAVR valve durability was substantially higher. These findings suggest that durability concerns should not influence the initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis of current evidence supporting TAVR valve durability. However, in younger low-risk patients, valve durability must be weighed against other patient factors such as life expectancy.

[1]  P. Austin,et al.  Surgical valve selection in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. , 2020, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  P. Austin,et al.  Transcatheter ViV Versus Redo Surgical AVR for the Management of Failed Biological Prosthesis: Early and Late Outcomes in a Propensity-Matched Cohort. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[3]  K. Negishi,et al.  Patient Risk Factors for Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2019, Heart, lung & circulation.

[4]  A. Franco‐Cereceda,et al.  Loss in Life Expectancy After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: SWEDEHEART Study. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  B. Prendergast,et al.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. , 2019, Circulation.

[6]  M. Niemelä,et al.  Comparison of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis at Low Operative Risk , 2019, JAMA network open.

[7]  P. Avanzas,et al.  Long term TAVI: Only time will tell. , 2019, International journal of cardiology.

[8]  C. Otto Informed Shared Decisions for Patients with Aortic Stenosis. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[10]  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.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  M. Jinzaki,et al.  Early and Late Leaflet Thrombosis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Initiative From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry , 2019, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  D. Dvir,et al.  Transcatheter valve‐in‐valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[15]  R. Lederman,et al.  Transcatheter Laceration of Aortic Leaflets to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Concept to First-in-Human. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[16]  A. Yoganathan,et al.  Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. , 2018, Circulation.

[17]  D. Dvir,et al.  Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture to Facilitate Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation. , 2017, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[18]  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.

[19]  P. Pibarot,et al.  Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Durability: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Management of Surgical and Transcatheter Valve Degeneration. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  D. Dvir,et al.  Bioprosthetic Valve Fracture Improves the Hemodynamic Results of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , 2017, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[21]  R. Lange,et al.  Outcomes of Redo Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for the Treatment of Postprocedural and Late Occurrence of Paravalvular Regurgitation and Transcatheter Valve Failure , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

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

[23]  S. Aranki,et al.  Contemporary Outcomes of Repeat Aortic Valve Replacement: A Benchmark for Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Procedures. , 2015, Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

[24]  R. Virmani,et al.  Transcatheter heart valve failure: a systematic review. , 2015, European heart journal.

[25]  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.

[26]  Jonathan Karnon,et al.  Modeling Using Discrete Event Simulation , 2012 .

[27]  M. Ruel,et al.  Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation , 2011, Circulation.

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

[29]  P. Austin Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[30]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1--coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. , 2009, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[31]  Peter C. Austin,et al.  Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research , 2009, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[32]  Jeevanantham Rajeswaran,et al.  Survival after valve replacement for aortic stenosis: implications for decision making. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[33]  J. Habbema,et al.  Comparison of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial and supraannular bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement. , 2006, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[34]  J. Habbema,et al.  Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve: use of microsimulation. , 2005, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[35]  E W Steyerberg,et al.  Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation , 2004, Heart.

[36]  J.D.F. Habbema,et al.  Prognosis After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Bioprosthesis: Predictions Based on Meta-Analysis and Microsimulation , 2001, Circulation.