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

Similar documents
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

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

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

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

1-YEAR OUTCOMES FROM JOHN WEBB, MD

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

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

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

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

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

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

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

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

Case Presentations TAVR: The Good Bad and The Ugly

Aortic Stenosis: Open vs TAVR vs Nothing

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

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

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

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

For the SURTAVI Investigators

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

How to Avoid Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch

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

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

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

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

Prosthetic valve dysfunction: stenosis or regurgitation

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

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

Patient/prosthesis mismatch: how to evaluate and when to act?

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

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THESE ECHO MEASUREMENTS ANYWAY?

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

22/06/2017. Oxford City. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 2017 guidelines. 1. First time I have heard about it. 2.

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

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

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

TAVI After PARTNER-2 : The Hamilton Approach

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

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

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

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

Evolving and Expanding Indications for TAVR

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

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

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Reverse left atrium and left ventricle remodeling after aortic valve interventions

Aortic Stenosis Background and Breakthroughs in Treatment: TAVR Update

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

TAVR for Complex Aortic Valvular Conditions

TAVR SPRING 2017 The evolution of TAVR

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

Echocardiographic Evaluation of Aortic Valve Prosthesis

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

Management of Difficult Aortic Root, Old and New solutions

Corrado Tamburino, MD, PhD

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

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

CoreValve in a Degenerative Surgical Valve

Neal Kleiman, MD Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute

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

Predictors, incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation complicated by stroke

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

Progress In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

How to Prevent Thromboembolic Complications in TAVI

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

Structural Heart Disease Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)

Valvular Intervention

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

The Ross Procedure: Outcomes at 20 Years

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

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

New Cardiovascular Devices and Interventions: Non-Contrast MRI for TAVR Abhishek Chaturvedi Assistant Professor. Cardiothoracic Radiology

Mild paravalvular regurgitation is not an independent predictor of mortality following TAVI

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis

Tissue vs Mechanical What s the Data??

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

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

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch or Prosthetic Valve Stenosis?

Disclosures. LGH TAVR: Presentation Outline 2/2/2016. Updates in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) and the LGH Experience

Supplementary Online Content

Prof. Patrizio LANCELLOTTI, MD, PhD Heart Valve Clinic, University of Liège, CHU Sart Tilman, Liège, BELGIUM

Indicator Mild Moderate Severe

Mechanical vs. Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Time to Reconsider? Christian Shults, MD Cardiac Surgeon, Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute

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

Interventional procedures guidance Published: 26 July 2017 nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg586

Echo Assessment Pre-TAVI

Results of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

CoreValve Evolut R Technology review and Clinical Results. Paul TL Chiam

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

Transcription:

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in a Randomized Trial of a Self-Expanding Prosthesis George L. Zorn, III On Behalf of the CoreValve US Clinical Investigators

Disclosure Statement of Financial Interest 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 Proctor/consultant Proctor/consultant Company Medtronic Edwards Under direction from Dr. Zorn, Medtronic performed all statistical analyses and assisted in the graphical display of the data. 2

Background Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with higher mortality but the association of PPM with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes is unclear PPM has been associated with less LV mass regression at 1 year in SAVR and TAVR patients TAVR may provide an option to reduce PPM and associated clinical events in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement Pibarot P, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 3

Study Device and Access Routes 4 Valve Sizes (23, 26, 29, 31 mm) (18-29 mm Annular Range) 18F Delivery System Transfemoral Subclavian Direct Aortic 4

Objective To compare the incidence of PPM between TAVR using a self-expanding prosthesis and SAVR in the CoreValve US High Risk Pivotal Trial To determine the impact of PPM after aortic valve replacement on clinical outcomes 5

Methods Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or SAVR in the CoreValve US High Risk Trial Postoperative PPM was defined by the effective orifice area index (EOAi) Severe PPM was defined as EOAi 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 Moderate PPM was 0.65 < EOAi 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 No PPM was EOAi > 0.85 cm 2 /m 2 This subgroup analysis compares outcomes at 1 year between severe PPM and no severe PPM (EOAi > 0.65 cm 2 /m 2 ) in patients receiving TAVR or SAVR treatment 6

Clinical Demographics Characteristic Severe PPM (N=24) TAVR No severe PPM (N=343) P value Severe PPM (N=75) SAVR No severe PPM (N=259) P value Age 81.5 (8.4) 83.1 (7.0) 0.2756 82.1 (7.0) 83.7 (6.1) 0.0531 Male 11 (45.8) 186 (54.2) 0.4253 34 (45.3) 140 (54.1) 0.1831 BMI 31.9 (7.5) 27.8 (6.0) 0.0016 30.4 (7.9) 28.0 (5.8) 0.0134 NYHA Class III/IV 22 (91.7) 292 (85.1) 0.5517 67 (89.3) 223 (86.1) 0.4660 STS Score (Risk of Mortality, %) 7.3 (2.9) 7.2 (2.9) 0.8368 7.6 (2.9) 7.5 (3.4) 0.7779 Diabetes mellitus 11 (45.8) 121 (35.3) 0.2975 43 (57.3) 111 (42.9) 0.0268 Coronary artery disease 17 (70.8) 262 (76.4) 0.5380 58 (77.3) 195 (75.3) 0.7161 Prior stroke 2 (8.3) 43 (12.5) 0.7524 10 (13.3) 39 (15.1) 0.7012 Prior CABG 6 (25.0) 105 (30.6) 0.5628 26 (34.7) 76 (29.3) 0.3781 Prior PCI 6 (25.0) 118 (34.4) 0.3465 32 (42.7) 97 (37.5) 0.4140 Home oxygen 7 (29.2) 40 (11.7) 0.0134 9 (12.0) 28 (10.8) 0.7726 7

Baseline Echocardiographic Findings Characteristic Severe PPM (N=24) TAVR No severe PPM (N=343) P value Severe PPM (N=75) SAVR No severe PPM (N=259) P value EOAI, cm 2 /m 2 0.32 (0.07) 0.40 (0.12) 0.0005 0.36 0.14) 0.41 (0.12) 0.0109 Aortic Annulus Diameter, cm 2.07 (0.16) 2.23 (0.21) 0.0006 2.14 (0.22) 2.19 (0.21) 0.0676 Doppler Stroke Volume, ml 69.60 (16.92) 76.50 (23.93) 0.2050 69.16 (18.06) 77.45 (20.39) 0.0025 LV Mass, gm 226.45 (60.41) 225.95 (71.69) 0.9781 243.18 (67.42) 224.68 (63.52) 0.0434 LV Mass Index (gm/m 2 ) 119.70 (30.64) 122.29 (35.50) 0.7744 127.29 (33.99) 123.10 (33.43) 0.3790 Ejection Fraction, % 56.04 (12.25) 58.17 (11.25) 0.3737 55.07 (13.04) 58.30 (11.44) 0.0380 Moderate MR (%) 5 (20.8) 31 (9.2) 0.0661 10 (13.5) 26 (10.4) 0.4541 8

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Severe PPM occurs significantly more after SAVR than TAVR 9

EOA index: Change from Baseline to 1 Year TAVR SAVR AATS 2015 P-value for change from baseline to 1-Year < 0.001 for all 10

Change in Echocardiographic Findings from Baseline to 1 Year Characteristic Severe PPM TAVR SAVR No severe PPM P value Severe PPM No severe PPM P value AV Peak Velocity (m/s) n=19 n = 270 n = 47 n = 174 Baseline 4.64 (0.63) 4.38 (0.56) 0.0532 4.47 (0.55) 4.34 (0.58) 0.1787 1 Year 2.25 (0.38) 2.01 (0.38) 0.0082 2.68 (0.60) 2.22 (0.55) < 0.0001 Mean Gradient, mmhg n=19 n = 270 n = 47 n = 174 Baseline 52.63 (15.84) 47.74 (13.50) 0.1332 50.13 (16.41) 47.19 (13.69) 0.2119 1 Year 11.18 (3.92) 8.92 (3.41) 0.0060 16.41 (7.74) 11.32 (6.93) < 0.0001 Severe PPM patients had a higher peak velocity and mean gradient than no severe PPM patients in both TAVR and SAVR groups 11

LV Mass Regression % at 1 Year 12

Moderate/Severe AR does not impact LV mass regression P=0.0048 P=0.1269 TAVR LV Mass Index (gm/m 2 13

Clinical Outcomes to 1 Year Characteristic All-Cause Mortality or Major Stroke Severe PPM (N=24) TAVR SAVR Overall No severe PPM (N=343) P value Severe PPM (N=75) No severe PPM (N=259) P value Severe PPM (N=99) No severe PPM (N=602) P value 16.9% 12.3% 0.4927 25.9% 17.6% 0.1099 23.7% 14.6% 0.0188* All-Cause Mortality 16.9% 10.0% 0.2436 21.8% 14.5% 0.1358 20.6% 12.0% 0.0145* Cardiovascular 9.1% 7.4% 0.7696 12.5% 9.2% 0.3882 11.7% 8.2% 0.2326 All Stroke 0.0% 8.3% 0.1623 11.1% 12.6% 0.8184 8.4% 10.1% 0.6756 Major stroke 0.0% 5.3% 0.2663 6.9% 6.1% 0.7367 5.2% 5.7% 0.9284 MI 0.0% 1.8% 0.5237 0.0% 1.6% 0.2849 0.0% 1.7% 0.2068 Reintervention 0.0% 1.5% 0.5706 0.0% 0.0% NA 0.0% 0.9% 0.3863 Life Threatening or Disabling bleeding Major Vascular Complication 26.5% 13.5% 0.1128 35.8% 38.5% 0.6817 33.6% 24.3% 0.0521 4.2% 6.1% 0.6993 2.7% 1.5% 0.5184 3.0% 4.2% 0.6004 Valve Thrombosis 0.0% 0.0% NA 0.0% 0.0% NA 0.0% 0.0% NA Acute Kidney Injury 12.5% 5.5% 0.1633 21.3% 12.4% 0.0476 19.2% 8.5% 0.0008* PPM was defined as severe PPM when the EOAi is 0.65 cm2/m2; No Severe PPM was defined as EOAi >0.65 cm2/m2. *adjusted P=0.0860 for all-cause mortality or major stroke ; adjusted P=0.0666 for all-cause mortality; adjusted P=0.0230 for acute kidney injury 14

All-Cause Mortality, % 1-Year All-Cause Mortality: SAVR Log-rank P=0.14 21.8 13.5 14.5 10.1 No. at Risk Months Post Procedure Severe PPM 75 72 63 56 No severe PPM 259 252 227 212 15

All-Cause Mortality, % 1-Year All-Cause Mortality: TAVR Log-rank P=0.24 12.5 4.4 16.9 10.0 No. at Risk Months Post Procedure Severe PPM 24 23 21 19 No severe PPM 343 342 326 304 16

All-Cause Mortality, % All-Cause Mortality: TAVR+SAVR Log-rank P=0.01 20.6 13.3 6.9 12.0 No. at Risk Months Post Procedure Severe PPM 99 95 84 75 No severe PPM 602 594 553 516 17

Conclusions In this randomized controlled trial of TAVR vs SAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis in a high risk population: PPM is more common with SAVR than TAVR PPM did not appear to influence LV mass regression within each treatment group but LV mass regression was notably less in the TAVR vs the SAVR group Patients with severe PPM have a higher rate of all-cause mortality and acute kidney injury than patients without severe PPM 18

Limitations Follow-up is only to 12 months and longer-term followup will provide further value There were too few patients with severe PPM in the TAVR treatment group to allow meaningful comparisons of some clinical and echo outcomes. 19

THANK YOU to all the CoreValve Investigators!