Sex differences in the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with newer generation devices: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonable therapeutic approach among patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis irrespective of surgical risk. Data regarding sex-specific differences in the outcomes with newer generation valves are limited. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies assessing sex differences in the outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR with newer generation valves (SAPIEN 3 or Evolut). Random effects model was constructed for summary estimates. RESULTS: Four observational studies with 4522 patients (44.8% women) were included in the meta-analysis. Women were older and had a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease and mean EuroScore. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality (up to 30 days) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-2.25), but no difference in 1-year mortality (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.72-1.17). There was no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.86-1.57), permanent pacemaker (PPM) (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.62-1.04), or disabling stroke (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.54-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, we found that women undergoing TAVR with newer-generation devices were older but had a lower prevalence of comorbidities. Women had a higher incidence of short-term mortality but no difference in the 1-year mortality, bleeding, PPM, or stroke compared with men. Future studies are required to confirm these findings.

A rare delayed complication after TAVR: Acute severe aortic insufficiency.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for managing severe aortic stenosis (AS) in high surgical risk patients. Despite favorable outcomes, TAVR has been associated with complications, such as aortic regurgitation (AR). Post-TAVR aortic insufficiency, which can present at any time after the procedure, manifests as paravalvular leak, central leak, or a combination of the two. Herein, we describe a unique and atypical case of a patient who presented with heart failure and was found to have severe AR in the context of having had TAVR 5 years prior using an Evolut R prosthetic valve.

Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: SCOPE 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. METHODS: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days. RESULTS: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group. CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813.

Impact of aortic angle on transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcome with Evolut-R, Portico, and Acurate-NEO.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate paravalvular leak (PVL) and devices success rates according to aortic angle (AA) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with three new-generation self-expanding devices. BACKGROUND: The impact of aortic angle (AA) on TAVI device success and PVL rates is controversial. METHODS: This retrospective study included 392 patients submitted to TAVI for severe aortic stenosis with Portico, Evolut-R and Acurate-NEO, and available AA measurements at computed tomography (CT) angiography. AA was calculated from the implantation projection and was defined as the angle between the plane of aortic annulus and an ideal horizontal plane. Aorta was defined horizontal if AA>57° (75th percentile). RESULTS: In the horizontal group, the rates of moderate/severe PVL was higher in the Evolut-R group (20.8%), which was also characterized by a lower implant compared to that of Acurate-NEO, whereas device success was comparable among the three devices. AA was a significant predictor of moderate/severe PVLs (AUC 0.72, p = .002) only in the Evolut-R population. On multivariate analysis, calcium volume 850HU, bicuspid aortic valve, and implantation depth at the level of left coronary cusp were independent predictors of moderate/severe PVL. On univariate analysis in the horizontal aorta population, implantation depth was confirmed among the most significant predictors of moderate/severe PVL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable device success rates, horizontal aorta represented a technical challenge only in the Evolut-R subgroup, which showed higher rates of moderate/severe PVL than Portico and Acurate-NEO, and was associated with a low implant.

The path of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: from compassionate to low-risk cases.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is one of the most common valvular diseases in developed countries. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as alternative to medical treatment or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in all symptomatic patients with severe AS. In 2002, Cribier performed the first human TAVI through a trans-septal approach in a 57-year-old man with severe AS. Since then, several trials have compared TAVI vs. SAVR over the years. Today, it is superior in terms of mortality to medical therapy in extreme-risk patients, non-inferior or superior to surgery in high-risk patients, and non-inferior to surgery and even superior when transfemoral access is possible in intermediate-risk patients. Interesting results emerged from the latest multicentre trials involving patients with severe AS who were at low risk for death from surgery, demonstrating that this therapy will be offered to younger people in the next future.

Performance of the CoreValve Evolut R and PRO in Severely Calcified Anatomy: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) are among the newest-generation of self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices and show excellent results. Treating patients with severely calcified (SC) native aortic valve anatomy may be challenging because of the increased risk of periprocedural complications. This study investigated the performance of Evolut R and PRO in this special patient subset. METHODS: Patients who underwent TAVR with the CoreValve Evolut R or PRO (n=381) from September 2015 to March 2018 were divided by aortic valve calcification extent. Patients with SC aortic valve anatomy (n=98; men, >2,062 and women, >1,377 Agatston units) were compared with those with non-severely calcified (NCS) aortic valve anatomy after 1:2 propensity score matching. Outcomes were evaluated according to the updated valve academic research consortium criteria. RESULTS: Patients with SC anatomy were older (83 years vs 80 years, p<0.001) and had a smaller aortic valve area (0.63 cm2 vs 0.70 cm2, p=0.028). Pre-dilatation was more often performed (30.6% vs 15.8%, p=0.003) and a permanent pacemaker implantation was more often necessary (32.9% vs 8.8%, p<0.001) in the SC group. None/mild aortic regurgitation (AR) was evenly distributed (SC, 96.9% vs NCS, 99.5%, p=0.109); moderate AR was present in 3.1% of SC patients and in 0.5% of NSC patients. Severe AR was not observed. CONCLUSION: The CoreValve Evolut R and PRO showed good clinical safety profiles and excellent haemodynamic results in patients with SC anatomy and who more often required permanent pacemaker implantation.

Outcomes of Evolut R Versus CoreValve After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of the new-generation, self-expanding Evolut R compared with the first-generation CoreValve on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unclear. This meta-analysis sought to investigate the outcomes of Evolut R vs CoreValve after TAVI. METHODS: A systematic review of studies comparing outcomes of Evolut R and CoreValve after TAVI was performed through PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Crude risk ratios (RRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), severe bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complications (MVC), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR), and device failure. RESULTS: Six studies involving 11,530 patients (4,597 receiving Evolut R and 6,933 receiving CoreValve) were included. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality between Evolut R and CoreValve (3.4% vs 5.0%, p = 0.10). The incidence of MI (0.2% vs 0.5%, p = 0.02), AKI (6.0% vs 9.2%, p = 0.001), moderate or severe PVR (6.4% vs 8.0%, p = 0.04), and device failure (3.5% vs 5.2%, p = 0.04) were significantly lower in Evolut R than CoreValve. There were trends toward less severe bleeding (7.2% vs 8.8%, p = 0.05) and PPI (18.6% vs 20.8%, p = 0.05) in Evolut R. The rates of stroke or TIA and MVC were similar between the two prostheses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CoreValve, Evolut R did not reduce 30-day all-cause mortality, but significantly improved periprocedural complications after TAVI.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis using Medtronic new generation self-expanding CoreValve Evolut R.

Conduction disturbance requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using Medtronic self-expanding CoreValve, and has remained common following the introduction of the new generation CoreValve Evolut R device. The aim of this study was to identify the determinants of PPM implantation after TAVI with CoreValve Evolut R. We retrospectively examined 114 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI using CoreValve Evolut R. We excluded 17 patients with preprocedural PPM, 1 patient requiring Edwards SAPIEN 3 implantation after CoreValve Evolut R implantation, and 4 patients who died during the hospital admission. Thus, 92 patients were finally included in the analysis. Seventeen patients (18%) underwent new PPM implantation after TAVI. Preprocedural electrocardiography showed a lower ventricular rate and more right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients with new PPM implantation compared to those without. Quantitative multidetector computed tomography assessment revealed larger aortic valve calcification (AVC) and higher asymmetry (∆AVC) in patients with new PPM implantation compared to those without. The univariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that preprocedural ventricular rate ≤ 70 beats per minute, RBBB, AVC ≥ 110 mm3, and ∆AVC ≥ 45 mm3 were associated with new PPM implantation. Number of these factors clearly stratified the risk of new PPM implantation. In conclusion, PPM implantation occurs in 18% of patients undergoing TAVI with the new generation CoreValve Evolut R. Lower preprocedural ventricular rate, RBBB, larger AVC, and higher ∆AVC are associated with new PPM implantation after TAVI using the new generation CoreValve Evolut R.

Transaortic Access Using Vascular Graft for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

A 92-year-old man with acute heart failure due to severe aortic stenosis underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Computed tomography demonstrated severe stenosis of the right common iliac artery, occlusion of the left external iliac artery, and stenosis of the left subclavian artery. Severe calcification was observed in the sinotubular junction, which was considered a risk factor for aortic dissection with transapical TAVI using a balloon-expanding bioprosthetic valve. Therefore, transaortic (TAo) access was the only option for this high-risk surgical patient. As the maximum distance from the aortic valve annulus to the sheath insertion point was less than 60 mm, TAVI was performed transaortically using a vascular graft that extended this distance, in order to avoid sheath dislocation. Our experience demonstrates that vascular graft application is a viable option in patients with an inadequate distance between the aortic valve annulus and the puncture site in TAo-TAVI.

EVOLUT Low-Risk Trial data: "We see what we want to see!"

In the 4-year update of the EVOLUT Low-Risk Trial (NCT02701283), the authors highlight a non-significant improvement in the primary endpoint and a statistically significant, yet clinically irrelevant, enhancement in hemodynamics with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Overlooking the concurrent surgical procedures in SAVR patients, mortality rates remain similar at 4 years. Unaddressed is the substantial increase in permanent pacemaker implantations with TAVR and the fate of patients with paravalvular leaks.

3-Year Outcomes From the Evolut Low Risk TAVR Bicuspid Study.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes from transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis beyond 2 years are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study. METHODS: The Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study conducted in 25 U.S. CENTERS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with bicuspid aortic valve anatomy (all subtypes) underwent TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular Evolut R or PRO (Medtronic) bioprosthesis. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all deaths and endpoint-related adverse events, and a central echocardiographic core laboratory assessed hemodynamic endpoints. RESULTS: An attempted implant was performed in 150 patients from December 2018 to October 2019. The mean age was 70.3 ± 5.5 years, 48% (72/150) of the patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.3% (Q1-Q3: 0.9%-1.7%). Sievers type 1 was the dominant bicuspid morphology (90.7%, 136/150). The Kaplan-Meier rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke were 1.3% (95% CI: 0.3%-5.3%) at 1 year, 3.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-8.1%) at 2 years, and 4.1% (95% CI: 1.6%-10.7%) at 3 years. The incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.4% (95% CI: 12.4%-29.6%) at 3 years. There were no instances of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 2 and 3 years after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year results from the Evolut Low Risk Bicuspid Study demonstrate low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and favorable hemodynamic performance.

Comparison of Two Generations of Self-Expandable Transcatheter Heart Valves in Nine Surgical Valves: An In Vitro Study.

(1) Background: This study aimed to analyse the hydrodynamic performance of two generations of self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV) as a valve-in-valve (ViV) in different surgical aortic valve (SAV) models under standardised conditions. The nitinol-based Evolut R valve is frequently used in ViV procedures. It is unclear whether its successor, the Evolut PRO, is superior in ViV procedures, particularly considering the previously implanted SAV model. (2) Methods: EvolutTM R 26 mm and EvolutTM PRO 26 mm prostheses were implanted in nine 21 mm labelled size SAV models (Hancock® II, Mosaic® UltraTM, EpicTM Supra, TrifectaTM GT, Perimount®, Perimount® Magna Ease, AvalusTM, IntuityTM, Freestyle®) to analyse their hydrodynamic performance under defined circulatory conditions in a pulse duplicator. (3) Results: Both THVs presented with the lowest effective orifice area (EOA) and highest mean pressure gradient (MPG) inside Hancock® II, whereas THVs in Intuity showed the highest EOA and lowest MPG. Evolut R and Evolut PRO showed significant hydrodynamic differences depending on the SAV. Both THVs performed similarly in porcine valves. Although the Evolut R performed better than Evolut PRO in stented bovine SAVs, the Evolut PRO was superior inside the Intuity. Further, the SAV model design markedly influenced the TAV's geometric orifice area and pin-wheeling index. (4) Conclusions: These findings show that the Evolut R and Evolut PRO perform differently depending on the previously implanted SAV model. THV selection for treatment of a specific SAV model should consider these results.

Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement With Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Patients With Degenerated Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been associated with favorable outcomes in patients with degenerated stentless bioprosthesis. However, whether the outcomes after ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprosthesis differ between balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) remains unknown. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed 59 consecutive patients who underwent ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis with BEVs (n = 42) versus SEVs (n = 17) in a single-health care system between 2013 and 2022. Overall, the mean age was 70.8 years and 74.6% were men. The mean transcatheter valve size was 26.3 ± 2.2 mm for BEVs and 26.4 ± 4 mm for SEVs (p = 0.93). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.0 ± 3.6 for BEVs and 7.5 ± 5.5 for SEVs (p = 0.22). Compared with patients who received BEVs, those who received SEVs had higher rates of device malposition (2.4% vs 23.5%, p <0.01), postdeployment balloon dilation (11.9% vs 35.5%, p = 0.04) and need for a second transcatheter device (2.4% vs 35.5%, p <0.01). However, both groups showed similar improvement in aortic valve function at 30-day and 1-year follow-up (incidence of 1-year severe patient-prosthesis mismatch in BEVs: 17.6% vs 14.3% in SEVs, p = 0.78). The 1- and 3-year mortality did not differ between BEVs and SEVs (11.9% vs 11.8% and 25% vs 30%, respectively, Log rank p = 0.9). In conclusion, performing ViV TAVR for failed stentless bioprsothesis is technically challenging, especially when using SEVs; however, satisfactory positioning is possible in most cases, with excellent hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with BEVs and SEVs.

Multicenter comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 versus Evolut PRO transcatheter heart valves.

BACKGROUND: New-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV) were designed to overcome technical constraints of their preceding generations. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the self-expanding ACURATE neo2 (Neo2) versus Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. METHODS: Seven hundred nine patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either Neo2 (n = 496) or PRO (n = 213) were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for differences in baseline characteristics. In-hospital and 30-day clinical outcomes were evaluated according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 criteria. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups after PSM (Neo2: n = 155, Evolut Pro: n = 155). Technical success rates were high in both groups (Neo2: 94.8% vs PRO: 97.4%; p = 0.239). Need for permanent pacemaker implantation was less frequent with Neo2 compared with PRO (7.5% vs 20.6%; p = 0.002), whereas major vascular complications were more frequent with Neo2 (Neo2: 11.6% vs PRO: 4.5%; p = 0.022). Intended valve performance at discharge was high in both groups without relevant differences among groups (Neo2: 97.4% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.328). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes after TAVI using latest-generation self-expanding THV were excellent, with overall low rates of adverse events. However, Neo2 was associated with lower pacemaker rates and reduced the prevalence of moderate-severe paravalvular leakage. Transprosthetic gradients after TAVI were higher with Neo2 compared with PRO.

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.

Reinterventions After CoreValve/Evolut Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Data on valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the 5-year incidence of valve reintervention after self-expanding CoreValve/Evolut TAVR vs SAVR. METHODS: Pooled data from CoreValve and Evolut R/PRO (Medtronic) randomized trials and single-arm studies encompassed 5,925 TAVR (4,478 CoreValve and 1,447 Evolut R/PRO) and 1,832 SAVR patients. Reinterventions were categorized by indication, timing, and treatment. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was compared between TAVR vs SAVR, Evolut vs CoreValve, and Evolut vs SAVR. RESULTS: There were 99 reinterventions (80 TAVR and 19 SAVR). The cumulative incidence of reintervention through 5 years was higher with TAVR vs SAVR (2.2% vs 1.5%; P = 0.017), with differences observed early (≤1 year; adjusted subdistribution HR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.53-8.02) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.48-2.28). The most common reason for reintervention was paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR and endocarditis after SAVR. Evolut had a significantly lower incidence of reintervention than CoreValve (0.9% vs 1.6%; P = 0.006) at 5 years with differences observed early (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73) but not from >1 to 5 years (adjusted subdistribution HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.21-1.74). The 5-year incidence of reintervention was similar for Evolut vs SAVR (0.9% vs 1.5%; P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of reintervention was observed for CoreValve/Evolut R/PRO and SAVR through 5 years. Reintervention occurred most often at ≤1 year for TAVR and >1 year for SAVR. Most early reinterventions were with the first-generation CoreValve and managed percutaneously. Reinterventions were more common following CoreValve TAVR compared with Evolut TAVR or SAVR.

First-in-Human Multicenter Experience of the Newest Generation Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Evolut FX TAVR System.

BACKGROUND: The latest-generation Evolut FX TAVR system (Medtronic) offers several potential design improvements over its predecessors, but early reported experience has been limited. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report our multicenter, limited market release, first-in-human experience of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Evolut FX system and compare it with a single-center PRO+ (Medtronic) experience. METHODS: From June 27 to September 16, 2022, 226 consecutive patients from 9 US centers underwent transfemoral TAVR with the Evolut FX system for native aortic stenosis (89.4%) or prosthetic valve degeneration (10.6%). Commissural alignment was defined as 0° to 30° between native and FX commissures. Patient, anatomical, and procedural characteristics were retrospectively reviewed, and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes per Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 definitions were reported. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 34.1% were low risk, 4% had a bicuspid valve, and 11.5% had a horizontal root (≥60°). Direct Inline sheath (Medtronic) was used in 67.6% and Lunderquist stiff wire (Cook Medical) in 35.4% of cases. Optimal hat marker orientation during deployment was achieved in 98.4%, with commissural alignment in 96.5%. At 30 days, 14.3% mild, 0.9% moderate, and no severe paravalvular leak were observed. Compared with the Evolut PRO+ experience from 1 center, FX had a more symmetrical implantation with shallower depth at the left coronary cusp (P < 0.001), fewer device recaptures (26.1% vs 39.5%; P = 0.004), and improved commissural alignment (96.5% vs 80.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut FX system demonstrated favorable 30-day outcomes with a significant improvement over PRO+ in achieving commissural alignment, fewer device recaptures, and more symmetrical implantation. These features may benefit younger patients undergoing TAVR with the supra-annular, self-expanding valve, where lifetime management would be important.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term clinical outcomes of the self-expanding Evolut R/pro valve versus the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The Evolut R/Pro and the Sapien 3 are the most commonly valve systems used today for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, there is a still uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety comparison of these two valves. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the Evolut R/Pro versus the Sapien 3. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality (short and long-term). The secondary outcomes were stroke, bleeding, permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), acute kidney injury (AKI), major vascular complication, device success, moderate- severe aortic regurgitation (AR), and pressure gradients. RESULTS: Twenty-one publications totaling 35,248 patients were included in the analysis. Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of short-term all-cause mortality (OR = 1.31;95% CI 1.15-1.49, p < 0.001) and a trend of higher long-term mortality (OR = 1.07;95% CI 1.00-1.16, p = 0.06). The Evolut R/Pro was associated with higher risk of PPI and AR and lower risk for bleeding, major vascular complication, and pressure gradients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding the risk of stroke, AKI and device success. CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut R/Pro valve system compared to the Sapien 3 is associated with higher risk of short-term mortality, significant AR and PPI while providing the advantage of lower risk of bleeding, major vascular complication, and lower residual transvalvular gradients.

Comparison of Paravalvular Leak in SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT PRO Valves in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Registry.

Paravalvular leak (PVL), conduction disturbances, and vascular complications remain the most common complications after TAVR. To address these adverse outcomes, the third generation of transcatheter heart valves has been developed. The last generation prosthesis provides an outer pericardial wrap for enhanced sealing and PVL prevention. This study aimed to compare the incidence and severity of PVL and 1-year survival after TAVR using SAPIEN 3 with those using EVOLUT PRO. An observational retrospective analysis was conducted in 1,481 patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in 6 different European centers. The primary end point was to assess the frequency and severity of PVL at 30 days after TAVR. The secondary end point was to compare 1-year survival using EVOLUT PRO with that using SAPIEN 3. SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve was implanted in 78.3% of study participants (n = 1,160) whereas EVOLUT PRO was implanted in 21.7% (n = 321). PVL is more commonly observed in patients treated with EVOLUT PRO at prehospital discharge (55.1% vs 37.3%) and at 1-month (51% vs 41.4%) and 1-year (51.3% vs 39.3%) follow-up. This difference mainly concerns low-grade (mild/trace) PVL. The frequency of high-degree (moderate/severe) PVL was almost similar in both groups throughout the study period (5.3% vs 5.8% before hospital discharge, 4% vs 3.1% at 1 month, and 3.2% vs 4.9% at 1 year). No significant difference in survival over 1 year has been observed (hazard ratio 0.73 [0.33 to 1.63], p = 0.442) (Graphical abstract). In conclusion, the detection rate of PVL after TAVR with third-generation heart valves remains high, and there are no major differences between the devices regarding the frequency of significant (moderate/severe) PVL and survival.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Comparing Medtronic's Evolut PRO and Evolut R: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a broadly acceptable alternative to AV surgery in patients with aortic stenosis (AS). New valve designs are becoming available to address the shortcomings of their predecessors and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to compare Medtronic's Evolut PRO, a new valve, with the previous Evolut R design. Procedural, functional and clinical endpoints according to the VARC-2 criteria were assessed. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies involving N = 12,363 patients were included. Evolut PRO patients differed regarding age (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001) and STS-PROM estimated risk. There was no difference between the two devices in terms of TAVI-related early complications and clinical endpoints. A 35% reduction of the risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leak (PVL) favoring the Evolut PRO was observed (RR 0.66, 95%CI, [0.52, 0.86] p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Similarly, Evolut PRO-treated patients demonstrated a reduction of over 35% in the risk of serious bleeding as compared with the Evolut R (RR 0.63, 95%CI, [0.41, 0.96]; p = 0.03; I2 = 39%), without differences in major vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows good short-term outcomes of both the Evolut PRO and Evolut R prostheses, with no differences in clinical and procedural endpoints. The Evolut PRO was associated with a lower rate of moderate-to-severe PVL and major bleeding.