Analysis compares mortality after TAVI using self-expanding and balloon-expandable valves, indicating differing outcomes with pre- and post-dilatation.
The main objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis, focusing on differences between self-expanding valve (SEV) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) prostheses and the influence of balloon pre- and post-dilatation on clinical results. The secondary objective was to report the long-term outcomes after TAVI in Romania. All patients who underwent a TAVI procedure for severe AS between November 2016 and May 2025 at a tertiary center in Romania were included in the present study. A total of 702 patients were included, of which 455 (64.8%) and 247 (35.1%) patients received a BEV (Sapien3 platform) and a SEV (Accurate, Boston, Portico, Evolut, or Navitor platforms), respectively. Pre-dilatation was performed in 514 (73.2%) cases, and post-dilatation was performed in 189 (26.9%) cases. There were 10.5 and 7.8 all-cause and cardiovascular-cause mortality event rates per 100 patient years, respectively. In regard to the univariable Cox regression, a BEV has significantly lower mortality than an SEV (HR = 0.67[0.46–0.96], p = 0.03), pre-dilatation did not influence mortality (HR = 0.71[0.48–1.04], p = 0.08), and post-dilatation significantly increased mortality (HR = 1.51[1.05–2.19], p = 0.03). In regard to the multivariable Cox regression, survival was not influenced by pre-dilatation or the valve platform, while post-dilatation had a trend towards higher mortality (p = 0.06). The BEV and SEV have similar survival rates, with no heterogeneity among a large number of TAVI platforms. While pre-dilatation had no impact on mortality, post-dilatation was associated with a trend towards increased mortality (p = 0.06), which was independent of the transprosthetic gradient. Survival after TAVI in Romania is comparable to that reported in Western registries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: