Long-Term Results Following Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate or high surgical risk. Results after TAVR in low-risk patients are very encouraging at mid-term follow-up while limited long-term (≥ 3-year) data are available in this subset of patients. This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term follow-up after TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. We searched databases up to July 7th 2024, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients (defined as STS-PROM Score less than 4%). (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480495). Primary outcome analysed was all-cause death at minimum 3-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: cardiovascular death, disabling stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF). A total of 3 RCTs with 2,644 patients (TAVR, n=1,371 patients; SAVR, n=1,273 patients) were included. Follow-up time was 6 ± 2.9 years. TAVR resulted non-inferior to SAVR for all-cause death [RR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.84-1.17; p=0.89; I2=28%)], cardiovascular death [RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.76-1.15; p=0.54; I2=0%)], MI [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p=0.79; I2=61%)], aortic valve reintervention, endocarditis and BVF. New-onset atrial fibrillation was higher in the SAVR group, while PPI in the TAVR group. In conclusion our meta-analysis showed that TAVR is associated with similar long-term outcomes compared to SAVR in selected, low-risk patients.

A novel balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve bioprosthesis: Myval and Myval Octacor.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded its application across all surgical risk levels, including low-risk patients, where, due to longer life expectancy, reducing common pitfalls of TAVR is essential. To address these needs, many technological advancements have been developed. Myval and the new generation Myval Octacor (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd) are novel balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) systems designed for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. AREAS COVERED: This review aims to illustrate the design features of these novel THVs and the main evidence from available studies. Furthermore, we provide evidence of these THVs' performance in challenging scenarios such as extra-large aortic annuli, bicuspid aortic valves, and valve-in-valve/valve-in-ring procedures. EXPERT OPINION: Myval and Myval Octacor have demonstrated comparable early safety and clinical efficacy to the leading contemporary THVs, exhibiting remarkably low rates of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). The wide range of sizes offered by the Myval family may minimize the risk of under-/oversizing, potentially explaining the lower rates of the aforementioned phenomena. Moreover, the presence of both internal skirt and external reinforced cuff may also explain the low rate of moderate to severe PVL.

Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006]. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.

Clinical outcomes of the Myval transcatheter heart valve system in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: a two-year follow-up observational study.

Introduction: Limited data exist on long-term follow-up of severe aortic stenosis (SAS) patients who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with a new generation, balloon expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV). Thus, we sought to investigate the performance and 2-year clinical outcome of the Myval THV system based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) criteria. Material and methods: A multi-centre, registry-based, observational study was conducted, which included 207 consecutive degenerative SAS patients, from Turkey (n = 128), Italy (n = 58), and Greece (n = 21) (mean [standard deviation] 81 (7) years, 94 [45%] men; 73% NYHA III or IV; EuroSCORE II 5.2% [2.4%]); all patients underwent TAVI with Myval. Patients were followed up at 1 year and 2 years after implantation. Clinical and procedural outcomes were defined according to VARC-3 criteria. Results: Technical success was observed in 204 (99%), device success was observed in 189 (91%), early safety was observed in 161 (78%), and clinical efficacy was observed in 163 (79%) patients. The 30-day death rate was 7.7%; of these, 3.4% were due to cardiovascular reasons. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were 9.7% and 4.3% at 1-year follow-up, and 17.4% and 9.7% at 2-year follow-up, respectively. Incidence of ≥ moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) at 30 days, 1 year and 2 years of follow-up were 3.4%, 4.3% and 4.8%. A total of 11.1% of patients required a permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30 days after implantation, while the cumulative rate of PPI at 2 years was 12.1%. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with SAS, the Myval was found to be safe and effective in up to 2 years of follow-up.

Comparing two-year outcomes of balloon-expandable Myval and self-expanding Evolut R in severe aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The new balloon-expandable (BE) Myval transcatheter heart valves (THV) has shown promising early results with low paravalvular leak (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates. Limited data are available regarding its long-term performance. We aimed to compare the 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the self-expanding (SE) Evolut R and the BE Myval THVs. METHODS: The EVAL study included 166 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who underwent TAVR either with SE Evolut R (n = 108) or BE Myval (n = 58) THV. Primary objectives include comparison on clinical efficacy (freedom from all-cause mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular hospitalization), echocardiographic performance and PPI rates between the two THVs. RESULTS: At 2-year the BE Myval group showed higher clinical efficacy (86% vs. 66%,HR:2.62, 95%CI 2.2-5.1;p = 0.006), with fewer cardiac hospitalizations (3.4% vs. 13.9%,p = 0.03). No significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke rates were observed. The proportion of patients with ≥moderate PVL was significantly lower in the BE Myval compared to the SE Evolut R group (4%vs. 22%,p = 0.008). The mean transvalvular gradient was significantly higher in the SE group compared to the BE group (9.5 ± 4.3 vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mmHg,p < 0.001), however there was no difference in the percentage of patients with a mean gradient ≥20 mmHg between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both THVs offer similar 2-year clinical outcomes. The BE Myval THV demonstrated advantages with higher clinical efficacy and lower PVL incidence. Longer follow-up and randomized trials are needed to validate these results and assess Myval's sustained performance and durability.