Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The PARTNER Trial

Similar documents
A new option for the Diagnosis and Management of Valvular Heart Disease. Oregon Comprehensive Valve Center

THE PERCUTANEOUS MANAGEMENT OF VALVULAR HEART DISEASE DR JOHN RAWLINS CONSULTANT INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGIST UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL SOUTHAMPTON

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

Aortic Stenosis: Open vs TAVR vs Nothing

SAPIEN 3: Evaluation of a Balloon- Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients With Aortic Stenosis One-Year Outcomes

Transcatheter Therapies For Aortic Valve Disease. March 2017 Brian Whisenant MD

2/15/2018 DISCLOSURES OBJECTIVES. Consultant for BioSense Webster, a J&J Co. Aortic stenosis background. Short history of TAVR

Incorporating the intermediate risk in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

Debate: SAVR for Low-Risk Patients in 2017 is Obsolete AVR vs TAVI

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current and Future Devices: How do They Work, Eligibility, Review of Data

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement TAVR

Aortic Stenosis: Interventional Choice for a 70-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV? Interventional Choice for a 90-year old- SAVR, TAVR or BAV?

RANDOMISED TRIALS TAVI WITH SAVR STEPHAN WINDECKER AORTIC VALVE DISEASE COMPARING

Neal Kleiman, MD Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

TAVR-Update Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor Michigan State University, Central

Case Presentations TAVR: The Good Bad and The Ugly

Appropriate Patient Selection or Healthcare Rationing? Lessons from Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in The PARTNER I Trial Wilson Y.

Aortic Stenosis Background and Breakthroughs in Treatment: TAVR Update

Percutaneous aortic valve replacement should NOT be preferred therapy for aortic stenosis

TAVI- Is Stroke Risk the Achilles Heel of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Repair?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. SSVQ November 23, 2012 Centre Mont-Royal 15:40

Igor Palacios, MD Director of Interventional Cardiology Massachusetts General Hospital Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School

Evolving and Expanding Indications for TAVR

Clinical Outcome in Patients with Aortic Stenosis

TAVI PROGRAM CHANGING THE EDMONTON LANDSCAPE...

TAVR today: High Risk, Intermediate Risk Population, and Valve in Valve Therapy

Is TAVR Now Indicated in Even Low Risk Aortic Valve Disease Patients

TAVR in 2020: What is Next!!!!

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Randomized Trial of a Self-Expanding Prosthesis

An Update on the Edwards TAVR Results. Zvonimir Krajcer, MD Director, Peripheral Intervention Texas Heart Institute at St.

Aortic Valve Practice Guidelines: What Has Changed and What You Need to Know

Update on Percutaneous Therapies for Structural Heart Disease. William Thomas MD Director of Structural Heart Program Tucson Medical Center

Disclosures 4/16/2018. What s New in Valvularand Structural Heart Disease. None relevant to the presentation

Measuring the risk in valve patients Lessons learnt from the TAVI story? Bernard Iung Bichat Hospital, Paris, France

Valvular Intervention

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients:

The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)Program at Southcoast Health. Adam J. Saltzman, MD Cardiovascular Care Center

Aortic Stenosis in the Elderly: Difficulties for the Clinician. Are Symptoms Due to Aortic Stenosis?

Establishing the New Standard of Care for Inoperable Aortic Stenosis THE PARTNER TRIAL COHORT B RESULTS

Aortic Stenosis: Background

Edwards Transcatheter AVR: Have the Outcomes Changed after CE Approval?

Establishing a New Path Forward for Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis THE PARTNER TRIAL CLINICAL RESULTS

Assessment and Preparation of Patients with TAVI. Rob Tanzola Associate Professor, Queen s University

ΔΙΑΔΕΡΜΙΚΗ ΑΝΣΙΚΑΣΑΣΑΗ ΑΟΡΣΙΚΗ ΒΑΛΒΙΔΑ αντιμετώπιση επιπλοκών ΠΕΣΡΟ. ΔΑΡΔΑ, MD, FESC IICE 2012

Appropriate Use of TAVR - now and in the future. A Surgeon s Perspective. Neil Moat Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

Valve Disease in Patients With Heart Failure TAVI or Surgery? Miguel Sousa Uva Hospital Cruz Vermelha Lisbon, Portugal

Essential Support for a Structural Heart Program: The Valve and Structural Heart Clinic

Matthew R. Reynolds, M.D., M.Sc. On Behalf of the PARTNER Investigators

Bernard De Bruyne, MD, PhD Cardiovascular Center Aalst OLV-Clinic Aalst, Belgium

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Prince Sultan Cardiac Center Experience Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Low Gradient Severe? AS

Severe Aortic Valve Disease: TAVR in Four Ages and Four Etiologies Age 25 y/o Congenital, 50 y/o Bicuspid, 75 y/o Rheumatic, 100 y/o Degenerative

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

PERCUTANEOUS STRUCTURAL UPDATES TAVR WATCHMAN(LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE OCCLUDERS) MITRACLIP PARAVALVULAR LEAK REPAIRS ASD/PFO CLOSURES VALVULOPLASTIES

Aortic Valve Stenosis and TAVR: Putting it all together.

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

Potential conflicts of interest

Results of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

Integrating Innovative Technologies into the Care of Cardiac Patients

Valvular Heart Disease and Adult Congenital Intervention. A Pichard, MD. Director Cath Labs, Washington Hospital Center. Georgetown University.

Structural Heart Disease Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

Stainless Steel. Cobalt-chromium

Paris, August 28 th Gian Paolo Ussia on behalf of the CoreValve Italian Registry Investigators

Aortic Stenosis and TAVR TARUN NAGRANI, MD INTERVENTIONAL AND ENDOVASCULAR CARDIOLOGIST, SOMC

3 years after introduction of TAVI in QEH. Michael KY Lee On Behalf of QEH TAVI Heart Team Queen Elizabeth Hospital Hong Kong

Saudi Heart Association. Raising Standards through Education and Training

The Role of TAVI in high-risk and normal-risk Patients

Cardiolucca Heart Celebration. Seconda generazione delle valvole e miglioramento degli outcome nel trattamento percutaneo della stenosi aortica

When Should We Consider TAVI. (Surgeon s Viewpoint)? Pyowon Park Samsung Medical Center Seoul, Korea

State of the Art and Future perspective

CIPG Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement- When Is Less, More?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Overview for Wales. Dr Richard Anderson University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

Managing the Low Output Low Gradient Aortic Stenosis Patient

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in 62,125 TAVR Patients. An STS/ACC TVT Registry Report

Outcome of elderly patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis

AS with reduced LV ejection fraction: Contractile reserve should be systematically assessed: PRO

Valve Replacement without a Scalpel Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Charles T. Klodell, M.D.

TAVR 2018: TAVR has high clinical efficacy according to baseline patient risk! ii. Con

Multicentre clinical study evaluating a novel resheatable self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system

«Paradoxical» low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved LV function: A Silent Killer

Transcatheter Valve Replacement: Current State in 2017

TAVI: The Real Deal? Marc Pelletier, MD Head, Department of Cardiac Surgery New Brunswick Heart Centre

TAVR 2018: Cost-effective according to baseline patient risk. A real-world case example

TAVI: 10 Years After the First Case Low-Risk and High-Risk Patients What are the Limits? Dr Bernard Prendergast DM FRCP FESC John Radcliffe Hospital

2/28/2010. Speakers s name: Paul Chiam. I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: NONE. Antegrade transvenous transseptal route

TAVI: Nouveaux Horizons

Low Gradient Severe AS: Who Qualifies for TAVR? Andrzej Boguszewski MD, FACC, FSCAI Vice Chairman, Cardiology Mid-Michigan Health Associate Professor

Ian T. Meredith AM. MBBS, PhD, FRACP, FCSANZ, FACC, FAPSIC. Monash HEART, Monash Health & Monash University Melbourne, Australia

Policy Specific Section: March 30, 2012 March 7, 2013

Surgical AVR: Are there any contraindications? Pyowon Park Samsung Medical Center Seoul, Korea

Edwards Sapien. Medtronic CoreValve. Inoperable FDA approved High risk: in trials. FDA approved

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in high risk patients. Β. Κόλλιας, Σ. Ματιάτου, Δ. Αγγουράς.

Valvular Heart Disease Transcatheter Valve Therapies. October 2016 Brian Whisenant MD

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes at 30 Days with the SAPIEN 3 TAVR System in Inoperable, High-Risk and Intermediate-Risk AS Patients

Prof. Dr. Thomas Walther. TAVI in ascending aorta / aortic root dilatation

Transcription:

Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Inoperable Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The PARTNER Trial Samir R. Kapadia, MD On behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators TCT 2014 September 13, 2014

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended treatment for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Long term clinical benefit and valve performance in this population remain unknown.

PARTNER Study Design Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis Inoperable N = 358 Severe Symptomatic AS with AVA< 0.8 cm 2 (EOA index < 0.5 cm 2 /m 2 ), and mean gradient > 40 mmhg or jet velocity > 4.0 m/s ASSESSMENT: Transfemoral Access 1:1 Randomization Inoperable defined as risk of death or serious irreversible morbidity of AVR as assessed by cardiologist and two surgeons exceeding 50%. TF TAVR n = 179 VS Standard Therapy n = 179 Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality Over Length of Trial (Superiority) Primary endpoint evaluated when all patients reached one year follow-up. After primary endpoint analysis reached, patients were allowed to cross-over to TAVR.

Key End-Points for 5 Year Analysis All-Cause Mortality Cardiac Mortality Re-hospitalization Stroke NYHA functional class Echo-derived valve areas, transvalvular gradients, and paravalvular leak. Mortality outcomes stratified by STS score, paravalvular leak and age.

Study Flow Inoperable Cohort N = 358 Randomized Inoperable N = 179 Standard Therapy 85 / 85 patients 100% followed at 1 Yr 19 / 19 patients 100% followed at 3 Yrs 6 / 6 patients 100% followed at 5 Yrs* 10 Patients Withdrew Cross Over 11 pts Cross Over 9 pts N = 179 TAVR 124 / 124 patients 100% followed at 1 Yr 81 / 83 patients 97.6% followed at 3 Yrs 50 / 51 patients 98.0% followed at 5 Yrs* * ± 2 months follow-up window

Patient Characteristics Characteristic TAVR N = 179 Standard Rx N = 179 p-value Age yr 83.1 ± 8.6 83.2 ± 8.3 0.95 Male sex (%) 45.8 46.9 0.92 STS Score 11.2 ± 5.8 12.1 ± 6.1 0.14 NYHA I or II (%) III or IV (%) 7.8 92.2 6.1 93.9 0.68 0.68 CAD (%) 67.6 74.3 0.20 COPD Any (%) O 2 dependent (%) 41.3 21.2 52.5 25.7 0.04 0.38 Creatinine > 2 mg/dl (%) 5.6 9.6 0.23 Frailty (%) 18.1 28.0 0.09 Porcelain aorta (%) 19.0 11.2 0.05 Chest wall radiation (%) 8.9 8.4 1.00

All-Cause Mortality (ITT) Crossover Patients Censored at Crossover Standard Rx (n = 179) TAVR (n = 179) 80.9% 87.5% 93.6% All-Cause Mortality (%) 50.8% 30.7% 68.0% 43.0% 53.9% 64.1% HR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.39, 0.65] p (log rank) < 0.0001 71.8% Months * In an age and gender matched US population without comorbidities, the mortality at 5 years is 40.5%.

Median Survival 11.1 Months p (log rank) < 0.0001 29.7 Months Months

All-Cause Mortality (ITT) Landmark Analysis HR [95% CI] = 0.50 [0.39, 0.65] p (log rank) < 0.0001 HR [95% CI] = 0.46 [0.32, 0.66] p (log rank) < 0.0001 Standard Rx (n = 179) TAVR (n = 179) HR [95% CI] = 0.47 [0.24, 0.94] p (log rank) = 0.028 All-Cause Mortality (%) 0-1 Year 1-3 Years 61.1% 3-5 Years 50.8% 30.7% 33.4% 66.7% 38.9% 0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 Months

Cardiovascular Mortality (ITT) Crossover Patients Censored at Crossover Standard Rx (n = 179) TAVR (n = 179) Cardiovascular Mortality (%) 44.6% 20.5% 62.4% 30.7% 74.5% 41.2% 80.6% 47.6% HR [95% CI] = 0.41 [0.31, 0.55] p (log rank) < 0.0001 85.9% 57.3% Months

Causes of Death 18% vs 34% Percent Patients 48% vs 33% n=179 n=179

All-Cause Mortality Stratified by STS Score (ITT) STS < 5 STS 5-15 STS > 15 p (log rank) = 0.0012 p (log rank) = 0.0002 p (log rank) = 0.0749 100% 93.4% 93.3% 75.2% 73.7% Mortality (%) 55.9% Months Months Months Standard Rx (n = 12) Standard Rx (n = 123) Standard Rx (n = 43) TAVR (n = 28) TAVR (n = 113) TAVR (n = 38)

Cardiovascular Mortality Stratified by STS Score (ITT) STS < 5 STS 5-15 STS > 15 p (log rank) < 0.0001 p (log rank) < 0.0001 p (log rank) = 0.0098 100% 91.8% 82.4% Mortality (%) 41.1% 61.6% 57.8% Months Months Months Standard Rx (n = 12) Standard Rx (n = 123) Standard Rx (n = 43) TAVR (n = 28) TAVR (n = 113) TAVR (n = 38)

Repeat Hospitalization (ITT) Standard Rx (n = 179) TAVR (n = 179) 83.0% 87.3% 72.5% 75.7% Rehospitalization (%) 53.9% 34.9% 43.1% 46.3% 47.6% 27.0% HR [95% CI] = 0.40 [0.29, 0.55] p (log rank) < 0.0001 Months

NYHA Class Over Time (ITT) Survivors p = NS p < 0.0001 p = NS p = NS 23.7% 30.0% 14.3% 40.0% 60.8% 50.0% 92.2% 93.9% N = Baseline 1 Year 3 Years 5 Years

Competing Risks Analysis (ITT) Death and Stroke Incidence (%) 14.6% 5.7% Months

Paravalvular Leak (AT) Percent of Evaluable Echocardiograms N =

Mortality by Paravalvular Leak All-Cause Mortality None-Mild (n = 142) Moderate-Severe (n = 23) Cardiovascular Mortality None-Mild (n = 142) Moderate-Severe (n = 23) 78.3% 74.6% 69.2% 51.3% p (log rank) = 0.510 p (log rank) = 0.043

Mean Gradient & Valve Area (AT) EOA Mean Gradient Error bars = ± 1 Std Dev Mean Gradient (mmhg) Valve Area (cm²) N = 159 86 70 44 31 15 163 91 71 46 31 15

Mean Gradient & Valve Area (AT) Restricted to Patients with 5 Year Data EOA Mean Gradient Error bars = ± 1 Std Dev Mean Gradient (mmhg) Valve Area (cm²) N = 15 14 14 12 13 15 16 14 14 12 13 15

Subgroup Analysis All-Cause Mortality Hazard Ratio [95% CI] Overall (N=358) 0.50 [0.39-0.65] Age < 85 (N=186) 0.46 [0.33-0.66] Age 85 (N=172) 0.56 [0.39-0.79] Male (N=166) 0.46 [0.32-0.66] Female (N=192) 0.55 [0.40-0.78] BMI 25 (N=170) 0.58 [0.41-0.84] BMI > 25 (N=188) 0.44 [0.31-0.63] STS 11 (N=170) 0.52 [0.36-0.76] STS > 11 (N=187) 0.53 [0.37-0.74] EF 55 (N=173) 0.47 [0.33-0.67] EF > 55 (N=171) 0.61 [0.42-0.88] Pulmonary Hypertension No (N=136) 0.56 [0.37-0.85] Yes (N=103) 0.51 [0.32-0.82] Mod / Sev MR No (N=261) 0.58 [0.43-0.77] Yes (N=77) 0.30 [0.17-0.53] Oxygen Dependent COPD No (N=270) 0.46 [0.35-0.62] Yes (N=88) 0.68 [0.42-1.10] Prior CABG or PCI No (N=182) 0.55 [0.39-0.78] Yes (N=176) 0.46 [0.32-0.66] Interaction p-value 0.40 0.34 0.71 0.65 0.09 0.87 0.03 0.14 0.27

TAVR Mortality Stratified by Age (ITT) 96.0% 91.8% 73.5% 70.4% Mortality (%) Months

Clinical Observations Mortality benefit was similar in elderly (>85 yr) patients compared to those 85 years. Cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality benefit was seen even in patients with high STS score. Patients with O2 dependent COPD may have less mortality benefit. Beyond early procedural risk of stroke there was no persistent risk over 5-year follow up. Moderate and severe paravalvular leak is associated with higher cardiovascular mortality particularly in patients with less comorbidities.

Main Conclusions At 5 years follow-up benefits of TAVR were sustained as measured by: All-Cause Mortality Cardiovascular Mortality Repeat Hospitalization Functional Status Valve durability was demonstrated with no increase in transvalvular gradient or attrition of valve area.

Thank You to the Dedicated Study Teams at All PARTNER Investigational Sites