Outcome of Next-Generation Transcatheter Valves in Small Aortic Annuli: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Comparison

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

Current Evidence in TAVI patients using ACURATE and LOTUS valves

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

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

Results of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

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

One-year outcomes with the transcatheter LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

PVL Assessment. Is paravalvular regurgitation after TAVR still an important consideration in 2018?

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

Pacemaker rates Second generation TAVI Devices

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

Aortic valve implantation using the femoral and apical access: a single center experience.

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

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

PORTICO CE TRIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ST. JUDE MEDICAL PORTICO TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANT AND THE TRANSFEMORAL DELIVERY SYSTEM

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

How to Avoid Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

Andrzej Ochala, MD Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

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

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

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

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

TAVI in Rabin Medical Center -

TAVI in Korea, How to Avoid Conduction

The SAPIEN 3 TAVI Advantage

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

What is TAVR? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

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

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

Tissue vs Mechanical What s the Data??

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) - 5 important lessons learnt from HK experiences Michael KY Lee

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

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

How Do I Evaluate a Patient Being Considered for TAVR? Sunday, February 14, :00 11:25 PM 25 min

Aortic Stenosis: Background

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

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

SAPIEN 3 Sizing Considerations:

Interventional procedures guidance Published: 26 September 2014 nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg504

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

TAVI: Nouveaux Horizons

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

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

Management of Difficult Aortic Root, Old and New solutions

Hemodynamics Benefit of Supra-Annular Design in Failed Bio-Prosthetic Valves

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

Trend and Outcomes of Direct Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement from a Single-Center Experience

What is TAVR? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

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

TAVR in patients with. End-Stage CKD or in Renal Replacement Therapy:

Transcatheter heart valve thrombosis

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

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

VARC-2 and MVRC definitions Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD

Optimal Imaging Technique Prior to TAVI -Echocardiography-

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

TAVI: Transapical Procedures

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THESE ECHO MEASUREMENTS ANYWAY?

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

Pacemaker After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Where, When and How?

Imaging in TAVI. Jeroen J Bax Dept of Cardiology Leiden Univ Medical Center The Netherlands Davos, feb 2013

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Evolut-R

TAVI Technology and Procedural Changes

Indication, Timing, Assessment and Update on TAVI

Evolut R in bicuspid valve anatomies

TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 Valve. See the Clinical Difference

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

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE

The safety of introducing a new generation TAVR device: one departments experience from introducing a second generation repositionable TAVR

TAVI Implantation: Rapid Pacing, Pre and Post Dilatation

TAVI EN INSUFICIENCIA AORTICA

TAVR SPRING 2017 The evolution of TAVR

A review of the complications associated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Aortic Stenosis Background and Breakthroughs in Treatment: TAVR Update

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

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

Eberhard Grube MD, FACC, FSCAI

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for degenerated surgical bioprostheses

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

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

CoreValve in a Degenerative Surgical Valve

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Management of risks and complications

Nouvelles indications/ Nouvelles valves

Complicanze durante TAVI. Brambilla Nedy IRCCS Policlinico San Donato

Important Safety Information

Percutaneous Therapy for Calcific Mitral Valve Disease

Aortic stenosis (AS) remains the most common

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Comments restricted to Sapien and Corevalve 9/12/2016. Disclosures: Core Lab contracts with Edwards Lifesciences, Middlepeak, Medtronic

Minimalist Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (MA-TAVR)

Progress In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Federico M Asch MD, FASE MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute Georgetown University Washington, DC

Supplementary Online Content

IPAC date: May of 13

Successful Transfemoral Edwards Sapien Aortic. Valve Implantation in a Patient with Previous. Mitral Valve Replacement

Is TAVR the treatment of choice for high risk diabetic patients with aortic stenosis? Insights from the FRANCE2 Registry

Emerging Transcatheter Aortic Valve Technologies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcription:

Outcome of Next-Generation Transcatheter Valves in Small Aortic Annuli: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Comparison Mauri, V. et al.: Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e005013 All trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CAUTION: The law restricts these devices to sale by or on the order of a physician. Indications, contraindications, warnings and instructions for usecan be found in the product labeling supplied with each device. Information for use only in countries with applicable health authority product registrations. In the United States, The ACURATE neo valves are investigational devices and are not available for sale. Information not for use or distribution in France and Japan. 1 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Oct. 2017 Mauri et al.: ACURATE neo vs. SAPIEN 3 in small Annuli 2 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary Short-Term Outcome and Hemodynamic Performance of Next-Generation Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves in Patients With Small Aortic Annulus 1 STUDY DESIGN Retrospective, 1:1 propensity-matched multicenter comparison of ACURATE neo (N = 92) and SAPIEN 3 (N = 92) from 5 high volume centers in Germany. RESULTS Similar performance for ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 with no significant differences at 30 days and at 1 year in key safety outcomes, including the VARC-2 early safety composite, all-cause mortality, stroke, bleeding and vascular complications. Similar rates of moderate PVL (4.5% vs 3,6%; n.s.), no severe PVL in both groups. Lower, but not significant new permanent pacemaker rates in ACURATE neo group (12% vs.15.2%; n.s.). Lower 30-day and 1-year mean transvalvular gradients with ACURATE neo (9,3/6,6 mmhg vs. 14,5/17,5 mmhg; p<0.001/p=0,008). Lower rate of total Prosthesis-Patient-Mismatch (PPM) in ACURATE neo (41% vs. 67%; p=0.002) and severe PPM (3% vs. 22%; p=0.004). CONCLUSION This retrospective comparison of safety and performance of ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 in patients with small aortic annuli shows a comparable safety profile and superior hemodynamics regarding transvalvular gradients, ieoa and frequency of Prosthesis-Patient- Mismatch in ACURATE neo patients. This may be particularly beneficial in patients with small aortic annulus, who are at risk for Prosthesis-Patient- Mismatch, which has shown to be a strong predictor of short- and long-term mortality and premature bioprosthetic degeneration. * * Head SJ, et al.: The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J, 2012;33:1518-29. 1. 3 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Study Design Retrospective, multicenter propensity score matched comparison of hemodynamic performance and clinical outcome up to 1 year of the self-expanding, supra-annular Symetis ACURATE neo valve and the balloon-expandable, intra-annular Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve in patients with small aortic annulus. 246 patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and small annular dimension undergoing transfemoral TAVR between Feb. 2014 and Aug. 2016 at 5 high-volume centers in Germany (DHZ Munich, UK Regensburg, Kerckhoff Klinikum Bad Nauheim, UK Cologne, UKE Hamburg, JoHo Dortmund).). Inclusion criteria: small annular dimension defined as an annulus area <400 mm 2 and transfemoral TAVR with either ACURATE neo size S or Edwards SAPIEN 3 size 23 mm. Effective Orifice Area (EOA) was indexed to body surface area (ieoa). Patient-Prosthesis-Mismatch (PPM) was defined as an ieoa 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 and classified moderate (0.65 cm 2 /m 2 <ieoa 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 ) or severe (ieoa 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ) in accordance to the VARC-2 recommendations. 4 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Procedural Characteristics ACURATE neo N = 92 SAPIEN 3 N = 92 P Value Pre-dilation 87 (94.6) 29 (31.5) <0.001 Post-dilation 41 (44.6) 6 (6.5) <0.001 Rapid ventricular pacing during deployment 32 (34.8) 92 (100.0) <0.001 Number of rapid ventricular pacing episodes 1.7 ± 0.8 1.3 ± 0.6 0.001 Sizing <0.001 Undersized 5 (5.9) 0 (0) Within sizing range 73 (85.9) 71 (77.2) Oversized 7 (8.2) 21 (22.8) Oversizing (area %) 15.6 ± 8.2 15.1 ± 9.9 0.705 Oversizing (perimeter %) 4.9 ± 3.5 5.3 ± 4.6 0.633 Higher pre- and post-dilatation rate in ACURATE neo group due to self-expanding valve design. Lower rate of rapid pacing during deployment in ACURATE neo group. 5 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Clinical Outcome ACURATE neo N = 92 SAPIEN 3 N = 92 P Value 30-d mortality 1 (1.1) 2 (2.2) 1.000 1-y mortality 6 (8.3) 10 (13.3) 0.233 All stroke 3 (3.3) 2 (2.2) 1.000 Vascular complications 11 (12.0) 19 (20.7) 0.152 Major 2 (2.2) 6 (6.5) Bleeding 13 (14.1) 11 (12.0) 0.832 Life threatening 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) Permanent pacemaker implantation 11 (12.0) 14 (15.2) 0.678 Conversion to open surgery 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 1.000 Cardiac tamponade 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 1.000 Unplanned use of cardiopulmonary bypass 1 (1.0) 1 (1.0) 1.000 Ventricular perforation 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 1.000 Early safety 86 (93.5) 83 (90.2) 0.607 Similar rate of periprocedural VARC-2 events including permanent pacemaker implantation. No significant difference in Early Safety Composite Endpoint. 6 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class & Paravalvular Leakage (PVL) NYHA Class at 1-Year PVL at Discharge and at 1-Year New York Heart Association functional class at 1-year did not differ significantly between groups. Similar rates of PVL with no severe PVL in both groups at discharge and 1-year. 7 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Mean Transvalvular Gradient, Indexed Effective Orifice Area (ieoa) and Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Mean Transvalvular Gradients Indexed Effective Orifice Area (ieoa) Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Patients in ACURATE neo group showed significantly lower gradients, larger ieoas, and lower rates of Prosthesis-Patient-Mismatch (PPM), especially severe PPM (ieoa 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ). 8 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Acute and 30-day Outcome Summary 1 (% of patients unless otherwise stated) ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 show comparable VARC-2 procedural, performance and safety outcome and low, non-statistically different mortality at 30 days and at 1 year Both devices show comparable rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation and of moderate PVL; no severe PVL was observed with both devices ACURATE neo patients show significantly reduced risk of severe Patient-Prosthesis mismatch and significantly lower Mean Gradients Prosthesis-patient mismatch is present when the effective orifice area of an implanted prosthetic valve is too small in relation to body size and has shown to be a strong predictor of short- and long-term mortality and premature bioprosthetic degeneration* * Head SJ, et al.: The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J, 2012;33:1518-29. 1 Mauri, V. et al.: Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e00501. 9 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Conclusions Patients with small aortic annulus are at risk for Prosthesis-Patient-Mismatch, which might be a risk factor for structural valve deterioration and impaired outcome. This study from 5 high volume centers in Germany comprises a multicenter PS-matched comparison of hemodynamic performance and clinical outcome up to 1 year of ACURATE neo and SAPIEN 3 in patients with small aortic annulus. Results show low all-cause mortality and early safety event rates showed feasibility and safety of both valve systems with no significant differences. The incidence of new onset conduction disturbances requiring permanent PI was comparable in both groups. The ACURATE neo valve presented significantly lower transvalvular mean gradients and larger ieoas at discharge and 1-year follow-up and consequently, lower rates of Patient-Prosthesis-Mismatch. 10 2017 Boston Scientific Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved.