Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv ; 17(5): 681-692, 2024 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38479968

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The performance of latest iteration transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms in patients with small aortic anatomy remains underexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and performance between the self-expanding (SE) Evolut PRO and PRO+ and the balloon-expandable (BE) SAPIEN ULTRA in patients with small aortic annuli. METHODS: Data from the OPERA-TAVI (Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs. SAPIEN 3 ULTRA Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) registry were used, with 1:1 propensity score matching. Primary endpoints included 1-year effectiveness composite (all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization) and 30-day device-related (hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction and nonstructural valve dysfunction) outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3,516 patients, 251 matched pairs with aortic annular area <430 mm2 were assessed. The 1-year primary effectiveness outcome did not differ significantly between cohorts (SE 10.8% vs BE 11.2%; P = 0.91). The 30-day device-oriented composite outcome was more favorable in the Evolut PRO group (SE 4.8% vs BE 10.4%; P = 0.027). Notably, SE valve recipients showed higher rates of disabling stroke (SE 4.0% vs BE 0.0%; P < 0.01) and paravalvular leaks (mild or greater: SE 48.5% vs BE 18.6% [P < 0.001]; moderate: SE 4.5% vs BE 1.2% [P = 0.070]). The BE group had higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (moderate or greater: SE 16.0% vs BE 47.1% [P < 0.001]; severe: SE 1.3% vs BE 5.7% [P = 0.197]) and more patients with residual mean gradients >20 mm Hg (SE 1.0% vs BE 13.5%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with latest iteration devices is safe. SE platforms are associated with more favorable device performance in terms of hemodynamic structural and nonstructural dysfunction. Randomized data are needed to validate these findings and guide informed device selection.


Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Stroke , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Prosthesis Design , Treatment Outcome , Registries , Stroke/etiology
2.
Am J Cardiol ; 219: 60-70, 2024 May 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38401656

ABSTRACT

Evidence regarding gender-related differences in response to transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to the valve type is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gender on the treatment effect of Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices on clinical outcomes. The Comparative Analysis of Evolut PRO vs SAPIEN 3 Ultra Valves for Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (OPERA-TAVI) is a multicenter, multinational registry including patients who underwent the latest-iteration PRO or ULTRA implantation. Overall, 1,174 of 1,897 patients were matched based on valve type and compared according to gender, whereas 470 men and 630 women were matched and compared according to valve type. The 30-day and 1-year outcomes were evaluated. In the PRO and ULTRA groups, men had a higher co-morbidity burden, whereas women had smaller aortic root. The 30-day (device success [DS], early safety outcome, permanent pacemaker implantation, patient-prosthesis mismatch, paravalvular regurgitation, bleedings, vascular complications, and all-cause death) and 1-year outcomes (all-cause death, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization) did not differ according to gender in both valve groups. However, the male gender decreased the likelihood of 30-day DS with ULTRA versus PRO (p for interaction = 0.047). A higher risk of 30-day permanent pacemaker implantation and 1-year stroke and a lower risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch was observed in PRO versus ULTRA, regardless of gender. In conclusion, gender did not modify the treatment effect of PRO versus ULTRA on clinical outcomes, except for 30-day DS, which was decreased in men (vs women) who received ULTRA (vs PRO).


Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Prosthesis Design , Registries , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/methods , Male , Female , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Sex Factors , Aged, 80 and over , Aged , Treatment Outcome , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Aortic Valve/surgery
4.
EuroIntervention ; 20(1): 95-103, 2024 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37982161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Midterm comparative analyses of the latest iterations of the most used Evolut and SAPIEN platforms for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are lacking. AIMS: We aimed to compare 1-year clinical outcomes of TAVI patients receiving Evolut PRO/PRO+ (PRO) or SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) devices in current real-world practice. METHODS: Among patients enrolled in the OPERA-TAVI registry, patients with complete 1-year follow-up were considered for the purpose of this analysis. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to compare TAVI patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices. The primary endpoint was a composite of 1-year all-cause death, disabling stroke and rehospitalisation for heart failure. Five prespecified subgroups of patients were considered according to leaflet and left ventricular outflow tract calcifications, annulus dimensions and angulation, and leaflet morphology. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,897 patients, 587 matched pairs of patients with similar clinical and anatomical characteristics were compared. The primary composite endpoint did not differ between patients receiving PRO or ULTRA devices (Kaplan-Meier [KM] estimates 14.0% vs 11.9%; log-rank p=0.27). Patients receiving PRO devices had higher rates of 1-year disabling stroke (KM estimates 2.6% vs 0.4%; log-rank p=0.001), predominantly occurring within 30 days after TAVI (1.4% vs 0.0%; p=0.004). Outcomes were consistent across all the prespecified subsets of anatomical scenarios (all pinteraction>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI and receiving PRO or ULTRA devices in the current clinical practice were similar, but PRO patients had higher rates of disabling stroke. Outcomes did not differ across the different anatomical subsets of the aortic root.


Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Stroke , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Heart Valve Prosthesis/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Registries , Stroke/etiology , Prosthesis Design
5.
J Clin Med ; 12(23)2023 Nov 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38068420

ABSTRACT

In current clinical practice, commissural alignment of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is seldom achieved. Orientation of the THV within the aortic root and the subsequent influence upon leaflet haemodynamic function, coronary blood flow, and ease of access to the coronary ostia are gaining significant interest. Herein, we review the incidence and clinical implications of commissural misalignment in TAVI and offer thorough descriptions of how optimal alignment can be achieved with several different contemporary THV devices.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...