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

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

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

Aortic Stenosis: Open vs TAVR vs Nothing

Evolving and Expanding Indications for TAVR

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

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

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

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

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

After PARTNER 2A/S3i and SURTAVI: What is the Role of Surgery in Intermediate-Risk AS Patients?

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

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

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

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

TAVR in 2020: What is Next!!!!

Debate: SAVR for Low-Risk Patients in 2017 is Obsolete AVR vs TAVI

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

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

TAVR SPRING 2017 The evolution of TAVR

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

Vinod H. Thourani, MD, FACC, FACS

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis: Final Results from the PARTNER 2A Trial

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

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

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

Transcatheter Valve Replacement: Current State in 2017

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

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

SAPIEN 3 Sizing Considerations:

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

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

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

TAVI limitations for low risk patients

Early Experience of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Results from the Intrepid Global Pilot Study

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

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

Current Evidence in TAVI patients using ACURATE and LOTUS valves

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

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

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

TAVR: Review of the Robust Data from Randomized Trials

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis with the ACURATE neo2 valve system: 30-day safety and performance outcomes

Transcatheter procedures of the future; expanding the treatment options for patients with severe aortic stenosis

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

TAVR for Complex Aortic Valvular Conditions

Interventional Updates 2016

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

Aortic stenosis (AS) remains the most common

Neal Kleiman, MD Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute

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

Progress In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

The SAPIEN 3 TAVI Advantage

Aortic Stenosis: Background

30-Day Outcomes Following Implantation of a Repositionable Self-Expanding Aortic Bioprosthesis: First Report From the FORWARD Study

TRANSCATHETER MITRAL VALVE IMPLANTATION FOR SEVERE MITRAL REGURGITATION: THE TENDYNE GLOBAL FEASIBILITY TRIAL 1 YEAR OUTCOMES

Lotus Valve System for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation/Replacement (TAVI/R) Evidence

Outcomes in the Commercial Use of Self-expanding Prostheses in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comparison of the Medtronic CoreValve and

TAVI and TAVR: Radical and Revolutionary: The Newest Insights for the CV Community and a Panel Discussion

Is TAVI ready for prime time in: - Intermediate risk patients? - Low risk patients?

Aortic Stenosis Background and Breakthroughs in Treatment: TAVR Update

Indication, Timing, Assessment and Update on TAVI

RANDOMISED TRIALS TAVI WITH SAVR STEPHAN WINDECKER AORTIC VALVE DISEASE COMPARING

Cerebral Protection In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement The SENTINEL Study. Susheel Kodali, MD Columbia University Medical Center

Trans Catheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Martin B. Leon, MD on behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators

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

MITRAL (Mitral Implantation of TRAnscatheter valves)

State of the Art and Future perspective

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement TAVR

TAVR in 2017 What we know? What to expect?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Repositionable Self-expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Suboptimal for

The FORMA Early Feasibility Study: 30-Day Outcomes of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Therapy in Patients with Severe Secondary Tricuspid Regurgitation

PARTNER 2A & SAPIEN 3: TAVI for intermediate risk patients

Transcatheter Heart Valve Procedures

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

Early Experience of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Results from the Intrepid Global Pilot Study

TAVR for low-risk patients in 2017: not so fast.

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

Minimalist Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (MA-TAVR)

Case Presentations TAVR: The Good Bad and The Ugly

The Future of Medicine. Who to TAVR? Azeem Latib MD EMO-GVM Centro Cuore Columbus and San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

Emergency TAVI: Does It Exist? Is the Risk Higher?

TAVI: Present and Future Perspective

Update on TAVR. Howard C. Herrmann, MD, FACC, MSCAI

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

Aortic Valve Stenosis and TAVR: Putting it all together.

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

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

Transcatheter Heart Valve Therapy

TAVI Technology and Procedural Changes

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

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

Results of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Paravalvular Regurgitation is a Risk Factor Following TAVI

30-day Outcomes of The CENTERA Trial a New Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valve. Didier Tchétché, MD On Behalf of the CENTERA Investigators

Transcription:

SAPIEN 3: Evaluation of a Balloon- Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve in High-Risk and Inoperable Patients With Aortic Stenosis One-Year Outcomes Howard C. Herrmann, MD on behalf of The PARTNER II Trial Investigators TCT 2015 San Francisco October 15, 2015

Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest Howard C. Herrmann, MD Within the past 12 months, I or my spouse/partner have had a financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with the organization(s) listed below. Affiliation/Financial Relationship Grant/Research Support Company Abbott Vascular, Boston Sci, Cardiokinetx, Edwards Lifesciences, Gore, Medtronic, Mitraspan, Siemens, St. Jude Medical SAB (Equity) Honoraria MicroInterventional Devices Edwards Lifesciences

Background The initial PARTNER Trial for high-risk (HR) and inoperable (INOP) patients demonstrated the early promise of TAVR with first generation devices. At 1 year, mortality was 24% in HR (equivalent to SAVR) and 31% in INOP patients. 30-Day outcomes with the SAPIEN 3 (S3) TAVR system were presented at ACC 2015 demonstrating very low rates of adverse events. This presentation reports the study results in HR and INOP patients at 1 year.

The PARTNER II S3 Trial Study Design ASSESSMENT by Heart Valve Team n = 1076 Patients Intermediate Risk Operable (PII S3i) SAPIEN 3 2 Single Arm Non-Randomized Historical-Controlled Studies High-Risk Operable / Inoperable (PII S3HR) n = 583 Patients ASSESSMENT: Optimal Valve Delivery Access ASSESSMENT: Optimal Valve Delivery Access Transfemoral (TF) Transapical / Transaortic (TA/TAo) Transfemoral (TF) Transapical / Transaortic (TA/TAo) TF TAVR SAPIEN 3 TAA TAVR SAPIEN 3 TF TAVR SAPIEN 3 TAA TAVR SAPIEN 3 1 Year

SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve Distinguishing Features Enhanced frame geometry for low delivery profile Low frame height Bovine pericardial tissue Outer sealing skirt to reduce PVL

Key Inclusion Criteria Risk determined by STS score and Heart Team: High-Risk: STS score > 8 or Heart Team determination Inoperable: Risk of death or serious morbidity > 50% (assessed by a cardiologist and 2 cardiac surgeons) Severe aortic stenosis determined by echocardiography: Valve area < 0.8 cm 2 or valve area index < 0.5 cm 2 /m 2 and mean gradient > 40mmHg or peak velocity > 4 m/s

The PARTNER II S3 Trial Participating Sites Co-Principal Investigators Susheel Kodali Columbia University, NY Vinod Thourani Emory University, GA 583 Patients Enrolled at 29 US Participating Sites

The PARTNER II S3 HR / INOP Top 10 Enrollment Sites Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. (Los Angeles, CA) 73 Columbia University Medical Ctr. (New York, NY) 65 Emory University (Atlanta, GA) 63 University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) 43 Heart Hospital Baylor Plano (Plano, TX) 30 Ochsner Hospital (New Orleans, LA) 26 University of Texas, Houston (Houston, TX) 25 Stanford University Medical Ctr. (Palo Alto, CA) 24 Newark Beth Israel Medical Ctr. (Newark, NJ) 21 Washington Hospital Ctr. (Washington, DC) 19

Study Flow 30 Day and 1 Year Patient Status PII S3 HR / INOP n = 583 15 Deaths n = 568 At 30 Days 71 Additional Deaths 5 Withdrew Consent 485 / 492 or 98.6% Follow-up at 1 year

Baseline & Procedural Characteristics Median STS = 8.4% TA, 10% TAo, 6% N = 583 Average Age = 82yrs TF, 84% Female 42% Male 58% 1.9% 34.3% 38.9% 24.9% 20 mm 23 mm 26 mm 29 mm

Baseline Patient Characteristics Demographics Characteristic (%) Overall (n=583) HR (n=384, 66%) INOP (n=199, 34%) p-value Age (yrs) 82 83 80 0.001 Female gender 42 40 46 0.14 STS Score (median) 8.4 8.6 7.4 0.002 NYHA Class 3/4 90 90 91 0.82 DM 35 33 37 0.42 COPD - O 2 Dependent 27 17 42 0.0001 CKD - Creat. 2mg/dL 12 12 12 0.81 Hostile Chest 10 3 24 0.0001 Atrial Fibrillation 44 42 48 0.16 Permanent Pacemaker 16 17 15 0.42 Frailty 31 26 41 0.0002

Survival (All-Cause) S3 HR / INOP by Cohort at 1 Year 100% 80% 87.3% HR 85.6% Overall 82.3% INOP Survival (%) 60% 40% 20% p (log rank) = 0.14 0% 0 3 6 9 12 Numbers at Risk Months Overall 583 556 526 504 352 HR 384 367 353 335 232 INOP 199 189 173 169 120

Survival (All-Cause) S3 HR / INOP by Access at 1 Year 100% 80% 87.7% TF 85.6% Overall 74.7% TA / TAo Survival (%) 60% 40% 20% p (log rank) = 0.0006 0% 0 3 6 9 12 Numbers at Risk Months Overall 583 556 526 504 352 TF 491 475 449 433 301 TA / TAo 92 81 77 71 51

Survival (All-Cause) S3 HR / INOP Transfemoral Access at 1 Year 100% 80% 89.3% TF HR 84.3% TF INOP Survival (%) 60% 40% 20% p (log rank) = 0.1665 0% 0 3 6 9 12 Numbers at Risk Months TF HR 324 312 300 287 200 TF INOP 167 163 149 146 101

Disabling Strokes Modified Rankin Score 2, CEC Adjudicated 100% 80% Stroke (%) 60% 40% There was no difference between TF and TA / TAo. There was no difference between HR and INOP. 20% 0% 0 3 6 9 12 Numbers at Risk Months Overall 583 551 519 500 346 2.4%

Other Clinical Outcomes S3 HR / INOP 30 Days and 1 Year Clinical Outcomes (%) 30 Days 1 Year All-Cause Mortality 2.2 14.4 Cardiac Mortality 1.4 8.1 All Stroke 1.4 4.3 Disabling Stroke 0.9 2.4 Rehospitalization 8.0 17.1 New Permanent Pacemaker 13.3 16.9 Surgical AVR 0.2 0.6 Structural Valve Deterioration 0 0 Valve Thrombosis 0 0

NYHA Class Survivor Analysis p < 0.0001 p = NS 100% 2.0 0.9 11.3 13.3 6.8 7.7 80% 30.2 34.1 Class 4 60% 90.1 42.0 Class 3 40% 59.9 Class 2 20% 44.7 58.2 Class 1 0% # of Patients 10.0 Baseline 30 Days 1 Year 583 550 440

Mean Gradient & Aortic Valve Area Mean Gradient Aortic Valve Area 70 2.5 60 1.63 1.67 2 50 40 mmhg 30 45.5 1.5 cm² 1 20 10 0.67 11.1 11.3 0.5 0 # of Patients Baseline 30 Days 1 Year 568 532 379 544 510 357 0

Paravalvular Regurgitation Paired Analysis 100% 2.5 2.7 80% 33.2 29.1 Severe 60% 40% 20% p = 0.99 64.3 68.1 Moderate Mild None / Trace 0% # of Patients 30 Days 1 Year 364 364

1 Year KM Survival by 30-Day PVL 100% 80% No statistical difference between None/Trace and Mild. 88.0% N / T 85.9% Mild Survival (%) 60% 40% 61.9% M / S 20% Overall: Log-Rank p-value = 0.0058 M / S vs N / T: Log-Rank p-value = 0.0015 M / S vs Mild: Log-Rank p-value = 0.0058 0% 0 3 6 9 12 Numbers at Risk Months None / Trace 351 339 321 309 219 Mild 191 186 177 168 110 Mod / Severe 16 15 12 11 9

All-Cause Mortality at 1 Year Edwards SAPIEN Valves (As Treated Patients) 60% 50% 40% PARTNER I and II Trials TF Patients High-Risk Inoperable 30% 30.7% 20% 21.4% 23.7% 22.5% 15.7% 10% 10.7% 8.4% 0% P1B (TF) P1A (TF) P2B (TF) P2B XT (TF) S3 Inop (TF) S3HR (TF) S3 CE HR (TF) 175 240 271 282 101 324 96 SAPIEN SXT SAPIEN 3

Conclusions In high-risk and inoperable patients, the low rate of 30-day complications with the SAPIEN 3 TAVR system resulted in improved 1-year survival. Overall Survival: 85.6% High-Risk Survival: 87.3% High-Risk TF Survival: 89.3% Between 30 days and 1 year, the rates of both disabling stroke and significant paravalvular AR remained low and stable, with no significant differences between TF and alternative access. There was no association observed between the occurrence of Mild PVL and mortality at 1 year. Hemodynamic valve performance and early symptomatic improvement were sustained at 1 year.

Implications The combination of new design features of SAPIEN 3, procedural improvements, operator experience and improved patient selection have all contributed to a low rate of important adverse events (including stroke) and a high rate of 1-year survival in high-risk and inoperable patients with severe AS. These excellent 1 year follow-up data with SAPIEN 3 support the use of TAVR as the preferred therapy in high-risk and inoperable patients with aortic stenosis. The 1 year outcomes of the Intermediate Risk cohort will be available at ACC 2016.