RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe pure aortic regurgitation (AR) carries a high mortality and morbidity risk, and it is often undertreated because of the inherent surgical risk. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been used off-label in this setting with overall suboptimal results. The dedicated "purpose-built" Jena Valve Trilogy (JVT, JenaValve Technology) showed an encouraging performance, although it has never been compared to other THVs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the performance of the latest iteration of THVs used off-label in comparison to the purpose-built JVT in inoperable patients with severe AR. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry with 18 participating centers worldwide collecting data on inoperable patients with severe AR of the native valve. A bicuspid aortic valve was the main exclusion criterion. The primary endpoints were technical and device success, 1-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of 1-year mortality and the heart failure rehospitalization rate. RESULTS: Overall, 256 patients were enrolled. THVs used off-label were used in 168 cases (66%), whereas JVT was used in 88 (34%). JVT had higher technical (81% vs 98%; P < 0.001) and device success rates (73% vs 95%; P < 0.001), primarily driven by significantly lower incidences of THV embolization (15% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), the need for a second valve (11% vs 1.1%; P = 0.004), and moderate residual AR (10% vs 1.1%; P = 0.007). The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was comparable and elevated for both groups (22% vs 24%; P = 0.70). Finally, no significant difference was observed at the 1-year follow-up in terms of mortality (HR: 0.99; P = 0.980) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.5; P = 0.355). CONCLUSIONS: The JVT platform has a better acute performance than other THVs when used off-label for inoperable patients with severe AR. A longer follow-up is conceivably needed to detect a possible impact on prognosis.