Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial

Abstract Background and Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis across a broad range of surgical risk. The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial was the first to randomize patients at lower surgical risk to TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The aim of the present study was to report clinical and bioprosthesis outcomes after 10 years. Methods The NOTION trial randomized 280 patients to TAVI with the self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic Inc.) bioprosthesis (n = 145) or SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 135). The primary composite outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) was classified as structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD), clinical valve thrombosis, or endocarditis according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. Severe SVD was defined as (i) a transprosthetic gradient of 30 mmHg or more and an increase in transprosthetic gradient of 20 mmHg or more or (ii) severe new intraprosthetic regurgitation. Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) was defined as the composite rate of death from a valve-related cause or an unexplained death following the diagnosis of BVD, aortic valve re-intervention, or severe SVD. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between TAVI and SAVR: age 79.2 ± 4.9 years and 79.0 ± 4.7 years (P = .7), male 52.6% and 53.8% (P = .8), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% of 83.4% and 80.0% (P = .5), respectively. After 10 years, the risk of the composite outcome all-cause mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction was 65.5% after TAVI and 65.5% after SAVR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7–1.3; P = .9], with no difference for each individual outcome. Severe SVD had occurred in 1.5% and 10.0% (HR 0.2; 95% CI 0.04–0.7; P = .02) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. The cumulative incidence for severe NSVD was 20.5% and 43.0% (P < .001) and for endocarditis 7.2% and 7.4% (P = 1.0) after TAVI and SAVR, respectively. No patients had clinical valve thrombosis. Bioprosthetic valve failure occurred in 9.7% of TAVI and 13.8% of SAVR patients (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.4–1.5; P = .4). Conclusions In patients with severe AS and lower surgical risk randomized to TAVI or SAVR, the risk of major clinical outcomes was not different 10 years after treatment. The risk of severe bioprosthesis SVD was lower after TAVR compared with SAVR, while the risk of BVF was similar.

[1]  P. Teirstein,et al.  4-Year Outcomes of Patients With Aortic Stenosis in the Evolut Low Risk Trial. , 2023, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  V. Thourani,et al.  Survival Following Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: A Contemporary Trial Benchmark. , 2023, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[3]  J. Olesen,et al.  Patient Characteristics, Microbiology, and Mortality of Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation , 2023, Clinical Infectious Diseases.

[4]  Jung‐Min Ahn,et al.  Evaluating Reference Ages for Selecting Prosthesis Types for Heart Valve Replacement in Korea , 2023, JAMA network open.

[5]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Three-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis. , 2023, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  D. Adams,et al.  Structural Valve Deterioration After Self-Expanding Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Intermediate or High Risk. , 2022, JAMA cardiology.

[7]  H. Dauerman,et al.  National Trends in TAVR and SAVR for Patients with Severe Isolated Aortic Stenosis. , 2022, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  Sara K. Rostanski,et al.  Self-expanding Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of the SURTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2022, JAMA cardiology.

[9]  P. Pellikka,et al.  Performance of Echocardiographic Algorithms for Assessment of High Aortic Bioprosthetic Valve Gradients. , 2022, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[10]  H. Thiele,et al.  Temporal trends of TAVI treatment characteristics in high volume centers in Germany 2013–2020 , 2021, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

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

[12]  A. Kini,et al.  Meta-Analysis Comparing Valve Durability Among Different Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis. , 2021, The American journal of cardiology.

[13]  D. Steinbrüchel,et al.  Eight-year outcomes for patients with aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk randomized to transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement , 2021, European heart journal.

[14]  Brian C. Case,et al.  Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis. , 2021, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

[15]  G. Deeb,et al.  Five-Year Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes From the CoreValve US Pivotal Extreme Risk Trial , 2021, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[16]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. , 2021, European heart journal.

[17]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk. , 2021, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  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.

[19]  J. Leipsic,et al.  Structural Deterioration of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in the PARTNER-2 Trial. , 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  M. Leon,et al.  Coronary Cannulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The RE-ACCESS Study. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[21]  B. Prendergast,et al.  Coronary Access After Repeated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Glimpse Into the Future. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[22]  M. Mack,et al.  Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement. , 2020, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[24]  L. W. Andersen,et al.  Five-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes from the Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) Randomized Clinical Trial in Lower Surgical Risk Patients. , 2019, Circulation.

[25]  J. Svendsen,et al.  Mortality and Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Conduction Abnormalities After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. , 2019, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[26]  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.

[27]  G. Lawrie,et al.  Early Trifecta valve failure: Report of a cluster of cases from a tertiary care referral center , 2017, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[28]  P. Pibarot,et al.  The Present and FutureReview Topic of the WeekAortic Bioprosthetic Valve Durability: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Management of Surgical and Transcatheter Valve Degeneration , 2017 .

[29]  P. Leprince,et al.  Late Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients: The FRANCE-2 Registry. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  Yanping Chang,et al.  No clinical effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate- and low-risk patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at mid-term follow-up: an analysis from the NOTION trial. , 2016, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[31]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Possible Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  M. Mack,et al.  5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial , 2015, The Lancet.

[33]  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.

[34]  L. W. Andersen,et al.  Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[35]  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.

[36]  L. W. Andersen,et al.  The Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention (NOTION) trial comparing transcatheter versus surgical valve implantation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial , 2013, Trials.

[37]  G. Grunkemeier,et al.  Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves. , 2012, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[38]  Philippe Pibarot,et al.  The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. , 2012, European heart journal.

[39]  P. Cochat,et al.  Et al , 2008, Archives de pediatrie : organe officiel de la Societe francaise de pediatrie.

[40]  C. Hassager,et al.  Differences in left ventricular remodelling in patients with aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement with corevalve prostheses compared to surgery with porcine or bovine biological prostheses , 2018, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[41]  M. Mack,et al.  Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). , 2012, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.