General Versus Local Anesthesia With Conscious Sedation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The Randomized SOLVE-TAVI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, local anesthesia with conscious sedation (CS) is performed in roughly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, no randomized data assessing the safety and efficacy of CS versus general anesthesia (GA) are available. METHODS: The SOLVE-TAVI (Comparison of Second-Generation Self-Expandable Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves and General Versus Local Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial is a multicenter, open-label, 2×2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA. The primary efficacy end point was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05) and consisted of the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotic treatment, and acute kidney injury at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary composite end point occurred in 27.2% of CS and 26.4% of GA patients (rate difference, 0.8 [90% CI, -6.2 to 7.8]; Pequivalence=0.015). Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality, 3.2% versus 2.3% (rate difference, 1.0 [90% CI, -2.9 to 4.8]; Pequivalence<0.001); stroke, 2.4% versus 2.8% (rate difference, -0.4 [90% CI, -3.8 to 3.8]; Pequivalence<0.001); myocardial infarction, 0.5% versus 0.0% (rate difference, 0.5 [90% CI, -3.0 to 3.9]; Pequivalence<0.001), infection requiring antibiotics 21.1% versus 22.0% (rate difference, -0.9 [90% CI, -7.5 to 5.7]; Pequivalence=0.011); acute kidney injury, 9.0% versus 9.2% (rate difference, -0.2 [90% CI, -5.2 to 4.8]; Pequivalence=0.0005). There was a lower need for inotropes or vasopressors with CS (62.8%) versus GA (97.3%; rate difference, -34.4 [90% CI, -41.0 to -27.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA resulted in similar outcomes for the primary efficacy end point. These findings suggest that CS can be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02737150.

Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial.

AIMS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as established treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Technical developments in valve design have addressed previous limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leakage. However, there are only limited data available for the comparison of newer generation self-expandable valve (SEV) and balloon-expandable valve (BEV). METHODS AND RESULTS: SOLVE-TAVI is a multicentre, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI comparing SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The primary efficacy composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate/severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.4% of SEV patients and 26.1% of BEV patients meeting the prespecified criteria of equivalence [rate difference -2.39 (90% confidence interval, CI -9.45 to 4.66); Pequivalence = 0.04]. Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% vs. 2.3% [rate difference -0.93 (90% CI -4.78 to 2.92); Pequivalence < 0.001], stroke 0.5% vs. 4.7% [rate difference 4.20 (90% CI 0.12 to 8.27); Pequivalence = 0.003], moderate/severe paravalvular leak 3.4% vs. 1.5% [rate difference -1.89 (90% CI -5.86 to 2.08); Pequivalence = 0.0001], and permanent pacemaker implantation 23.0% vs. 19.2% [rate difference -3.85 (90% CI -10.41 to 2.72) in SEV vs. BEV patients; Pequivalence = 0.06]. CONCLUSION: In patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, newer generation SEV and BEV are equivalent for the primary valve-related efficacy endpoint. These findings support the safe application of these newer generation percutaneous valves in the majority of patients with some specific preferences based on individual valve anatomy.

Transapical aortic valve implantation in 100 consecutive patients: comparison to propensity-matched conventional aortic valve replacement.

AIMS: To evaluate the outcome of transapical aortic valve implantation (TA-AVI) in comparison to conventional surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred consecutive high-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis received TA-AVI using the Edwards SAPIEN pericardial xenograft between February 2006 and January 2008. Patient age was 82.7 +/- 5 years, 77 were females, logistic EuroSCORE predicted risk of mortality was 29.4 +/- 13% and Society Thoracic Surgeons score risk for mortality was 15.2 +/- 8.3%. Propensity score analysis was used to identify a control group of patients that underwent conventional aortic valve replacement (C-AVR). Transapical aortic valve implantation was performed successfully in 97 patients, whereas three patients required early conversion. There were no new onset neurological events in the TA-AVI group and early extubation was performed in 82 patients. Echocardiography revealed good valve function with low transvalvular gradients in all patients. Thirty-day survival was 90 +/- 3 vs. 85 +/- 4% for TA-AVI vs. C-AVR, and 1-year survival was 73 +/- 4 vs. 69 +/- 5% (P = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Transapical aortic valve implantation is a safe, minimally invasive, and off-pump technique to treat high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Results of the initial 100 patients are good and compare favourably to conventional surgery.