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

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

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

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

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

Current Evidence in TAVI patients using ACURATE and LOTUS valves

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

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

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

Nouvelles indications/ Nouvelles valves

Pacemaker rates Second generation TAVI Devices

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

HOW IMPORTANT ARE THESE ECHO MEASUREMENTS ANYWAY?

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

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

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Evolut-R

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

TAVR SPRING 2017 The evolution of TAVR

TAVR IN INTERMEDIATE-RISK PATIENTS

MITRAL (Mitral Implantation of TRAnscatheter valves)

TAVR in Intermediate Risk Populations /Optimizing Systems for TAVR

LOW RISK TAVR. WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

TAVI in Rabin Medical Center -

TAVI in Korea, How to Avoid Conduction

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

TAVI EN INSUFICIENCIA AORTICA

Incidence and Management of Early Implant Failure after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

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

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

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

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

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Management of risks and complications

Aortic Stenosis. TAVR available devices Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD

Progress In Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

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

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

Aortic Stenosis. TAVR available devices Ioannis Iakovou, MD, PhD

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

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement How Close Are We?

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Edwards' solution for patients suffering from tricuspid valve disease

APOLLO TMVR Trial Update: Case Presentation

Results of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Evolut R in bicuspid valve anatomies

Vinod H. Thourani, MD, FACC, FACS

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

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

Percutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation. Core-Valve and Cribier-Edwards Update

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

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

Repair or Replacement

What is TAVR? Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Mitral Programme Update

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

CoreValve in a Degenerative Surgical Valve

Investigational Device only in the U.S. Not available for sale in the U.S. ACCESS EU European Society of Cardiology

Emerging Transcatheter Aortic Valve Technologies

Update on Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair and Replacment

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

TAVI Technology and Procedural Changes

Le TAVI pour tout le monde?

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

The SAPIEN 3 TAVI Advantage

Update on a Tethered Transapical Device for TMVR Vinay Badhwar, MD

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

Vascular complications of embolized core valve

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

I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: Other(s): Proctor for Medtronic for TAVI cases using the CoreValve/Evolut R devices

TAVI: FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

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

Eberhard Grube MD, FACC, FSCAI

Introducing the COAPT Trial

TAVI: Transapical Procedures

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

Current Controversies. Subclinical and clinical valve thrombosis

Eberhard Grube MD, FACC, FSCAI

ACCESS-EUROPE Phase I

TAVR: Intermediate Risk Patients

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

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

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

Peri-operative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve implantations from the German Aortic valve RegistrY (GARY)

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

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

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

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

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

TAVI: Present and Future Perspective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis

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

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

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

Watchman. Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device. Uniquely engineered for the LAA 1-3 with proven safety and longterm efficacy. 4-8

TAVR: Current Valve Types. Patient Selection

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

Euro Heart Survey New Programme Sentinel Registry Transcatheter Valve Treatment (TCVT) Carlo Di Mario, London, UK President EAPCI

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

Outcomes of the Initial Experience with Commercial Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair in the U.S.

Transcription:

All cited 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 use can be found in the product labelling supplied with each device. Information for use only in countries with applicable health authority registrations. Material not intended for use in France. The ACURATE neo2 Valve System is currently not available for sale in the European Economic Area. For education purposes only. SH-576713-AA Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis with the ACURATE neo2 valve system: 30-day safety and performance outcomes Helge Möllmann, MD, PhD St.-Johannes-Hospital, Dortmund, Germany David M Holzhey, MD; Michael Hilker, MD; Stefan Toggweiler, MD; Ulrich Schäfer, MD; Hendrik Treede, MD, PhD; Michael Joner, MD; Lars Søndergaard, MD; Thomas Christen, MD; Ian T Meredith AM, MD, PhD; Won-Keun Kim, MD

Potential conflicts of interest Speaker's name : Helge, Möllmann; Dortmund I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Symetis, Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude Medical

The ACURATE neo2 Valve ACURATE neo2 maintains key features of the ACURATE neo valve Self-expanding nitinol frame with porcine pericardium leaflets Supra-annular positioning; two-step top-down deployment Treats annuli from 21mm to 27mm Stabilization Arches Axial; self-aligning Upper Crown Captures native leaflets and provides coronary clearance Lower Crown Minimal protrusion into LVOT ACURATE neo2 incorporates Advanced Sealing technology Inner and outer pericardial skirts (outer skirt covers to waist of stent) Designed to improve conformability to irregular, calcified anatomy and enhance reduction of PVL

ACURATE neo AS Study Design & Endpoints Prospective, single arm, multicentre study of 120 patients at 9 European sites Primary endpoint: All-cause mortality at 30 days Key secondary endpoints Procedural and device success VARC-2 clinical event rates at 30 days Hemodynamic function Aortic regurgitation Functional improvement (as per NYHA Classification) Independent data assessments Echocardiographic data analysed by a core laboratory (Neil J Weissman, MD; MedStar Health Research Institute) 100% monitoring of all VARC-2 safety events Data Monitoring Committee adjudication of all reported VARC-2 endpoint events and review of aggregate safety data

120 patients enrolled between December 2016 & November 2017 Enrollment Investigator Clinical Centre City, Country Subjects (N=120) Won-Keun Kim, MD, PhD Kerckhoff Heart Center Bad Nauheim, Germany 35 Helge Möllmann, MD, PhD St. Johannes Hospital Dortmund, Germany 33 David Holzhey, MD, PhD Heart Center Leipzig University Leipzig, Germany 20 Michael Hilker, MD, PhD University Hospital Regensburg Regensburg, Germany 16 Ulrich Schäfer, MD, PhD University Heart Center Hamburg Hamburg, Germany 4 Stefan Toggweiler, MD, PhD Luzerner Kantonsspital Lucerne, Switzerland 4 Hendrik Treede, MD, PhD Mid-German Heart Center, Halle, Germany 3 University Hospital Halle (Saale) Michael Joner, MD, PhD German Heart Center Munich Munich, Germany 3 Lars Søndergaard, MD, PhD Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark 2

Study Flow Intent-To-Treat Primary Endpoint Analysis N=120 Withdrew consent n=2 Valve Implanted n=120 30-Day Clinical Follow-up or Death n=118 (98.3%) 30-Day TTE/TEE Assessment n=104 (86.7%)

Baseline Characteristics ACURATE neo AS Study subjects were generally representative of patients treated in European contemporary practice Baseline Demographics & Risk Age, years 82.1 ± 4.0 Gender, female 67.5% STS Score, % 4.8 ± 3.8 Logistic EuroSCORE II, % 4.7 ± 3.8 NYHA Class III or IV 99.2% Baseline PPM 6.7% History of atrial fibrillation 15.0% AV block, 1 st degree 15.0% LBBB 10.8% RBBB 8.3% Echocardiographic Measurements EOA, cm 2 0.7 ± 0.2 Mean gradient, mmhg 40.3 ± 14.1 Peak gradient, mmhg 65.9 ± 21.4 LVEF, % 55.8 ± 10.1 AR moderate 6.1% MR moderate 7.6% Core laboratory adjudicated data

Procedural Characteristics Valve size implanted * S 25.8% M 45.0% L 29.2% Balloon pre-dilatation 95.8% Post-dilatation 32.5% Correct positioning of a single valve in the proper location 98.3% Peri-procedural MI ( 72h) 0.0% Coronary obstruction 0.0% Cardiac tamponade 0.0% Total procedure time 53.9 ± 31.9 min Time from femoral insertion to withdrawal of delivery system 3.9 ± 3.5 min Procedural Characteristics 97.5% procedural success (117/120 patients) In 2 patients, valve-in-valve * Size L valve was only available in the second phase of enrollment (ie, after enrollment of initial 30-patient cohort). implantation of a non-study valve was required (valve embolization, n=1; valve dislodgement/migration, n=1) In 1 patient, post-dilatation resulted in ventricular septal perforation and conversion to open heart surgery

Clinical Outcomes at 30 Days % (n/120) All-cause mortality 3.3 (4) Cardiovascular mortality 3.3 (4) All stroke 2.5 (3) Disabling stroke 1.7 (2) Major vascular complications 3.3 (4) Life-threatening or disabling bleeding 5.0 (6) Myocardial infarction (>72h post-procedure) 0.8 (1) Acute kidney injury (Stage 2 or 3) 0.8 (1) Permanent pacemaker implantation Among all patients (n=120) 15.0 (18) Among patients without a pacemaker at baseline (n=112) 16.1 (18) Valve malpositioning * 1.7 (2) Repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction 0.0 (0) Prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis or thrombosis 0.0 (0) * Includes valve migration, valve embolization, and ectopic valve deployment. 56% of new PPM patients (10/18) had a baseline conduction disorder AV block, 1 st degree, n=5 RBBB, n=4 LBBB (incomplete), n=1

Mean Aortic Gradient (mmhg) Valve Hemodynamics Core laboratory adjudicated data 100 80 60 40 20 40.3 ± 14.1 (n=116) 0.7 ± 0.2 (n=108) 1.6 ± 0.4 (n=97) 9.2 ± 3.7 (n=103) 1.7 ± 0.4 (n=99) 7.9 ± 3.2 (n=104) 2,0 1,6 1,2 0,8 0,4 Mean Effective Orifice Area (cm 2 ) 0 Baseline Discharge 30 Days 0,0

Percentage of Evaluable Echocardiograms Paravalvular Regurgitation Core laboratory adjudicated data No patients had >moderate PVL; 97% of patients had mild PVL at 30 days 100 80 60 40 4,0 3,0 53,5 62,0 Severe Mod-Sev Moderate Mild 20 42,6 35,0 None/Trace 0 Discharge (N=101) 30 Days (N=100) Among patients in whom echocardiography was performed and with follow-up data available for the given time points.

Percentage of Patients NYHA Functional Class From baseline to 30 days: 95% of patients improved at least 1 functional class 31% of patients improved at least 2 classes 100 4,2 0,9 0,9 8,0 6,4 IV 80 III 60 40 95,0 69,9 61,5 II I 20 0 31,2 21,2 0,8 Baseline Discharge 30 Days (N=120) (N=113) Among surviving patients in whom NYHA data was collected for the given time points. (N=109)

ACURATE neo AS Study Conclusions 97.5% procedural success with the ACURATE neo2 valve Low rates of major vascular complications, life-threatening/disabling bleeding, and TAV-in-TAV deployment 3.9 ± 3.5 min from femoral insertion to withdrawal of delivery system 30-day safety outcomes with ACURATE neo2 were comparable to those observed in other TAVI studies in similar patient populations Patients experienced marked hemodynamic improvement at 30 days Mean AV gradient: 7.9 mmhg Mean EOA: 1.7 cm 2 97% of patients had mild or no/trace PVL at 30 days; no patients had >moderate PVL