Real-World Multiple Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valves: Insights From the Multicenter OBSERVANT II Study

Background: Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population. Methods: A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups. Results: The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P=0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P<0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P<0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01) after TAVI. Conclusions: Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients.

[1]  S. Windecker,et al.  Five-year outcomes of mild paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. , 2021, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[2]  B. Prendergast,et al.  2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. , 2021, European heart journal.

[3]  G. Tarantini,et al.  One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices , 2021, Journal of clinical medicine.

[4]  F. Biancari,et al.  Long‐term outcomes of self‐expanding versus balloon‐expandable transcatheter aortic valves: Insights from the OBSERVANT study , 2021, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  M. Mack,et al.  2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2020, Circulation.

[6]  M. Mack,et al.  2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  L. Fauchier,et al.  Pacemaker implantation after balloon- or self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis , 2020 .

[8]  C. Hengstenberg,et al.  Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis , 2020, Circulation.

[9]  M. Barbanti,et al.  Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison and evaluation of current findings , 2020, Expert review of cardiovascular therapy.

[10]  F. Asch,et al.  Safety Profile of an Intra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve and Next-Generation Low-Profile Delivery System. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  S. Kapadia,et al.  Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial , 2020, The Lancet.

[12]  L. Fauchier,et al.  Pacemaker Implantation After Balloon‐ or Self‐Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis , 2020, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[13]  S. Buccheri,et al.  Outcomes of three different new generation transcatheter aortic valve prostheses , 2020, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  I. König,et al.  Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial. , 2020, European heart journal.

[15]  C. Tamburino,et al.  Pacemaker Dependency after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Incidence, Predictors and Long-term outcomes. , 2019, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[16]  P. Leprince,et al.  Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , 2019, Circulation.

[17]  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.

[18]  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.

[19]  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.

[20]  J. Suárez de Lezo,et al.  Long-term clinical impact of permanent cardiac pacing after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis: a single center experience , 2018, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[21]  C. Macaya,et al.  Comparison of the Hemodynamic Performance of the Balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Versus Self-expandable Evolut R Transcatheter Valve: A Case-matched Study. , 2017, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[22]  C. Hengstenberg,et al.  Multicenter Comparison of Novel Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves. , 2017, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[23]  A. Pichard,et al.  Contemporary transcatheter aortic valve replacement with third‐generation balloon‐expandable versus self‐expanding devices , 2017, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[24]  C. Tamburino,et al.  Pathophysiology, incidence and predictors of conduction disturbances during Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation , 2017, Expert review of medical devices.

[25]  Jennifer Taylor,et al.  ESC/EACTS Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. , 2012, European heart journal.