Key result
Myval THV yields ~86% hemodynamic success, beating Sapien but matching Evolut at 30 days.
Why the study?
Does the Myval THV series improve 30-day hemodynamic outcomes compared to Sapien and Evolut THV series in patients with aortic stenosis?
RCT (n=768)
open-label
randomised
Yes
Does the Myval THV series improve 30-day hemodynamic outcomes compared to Sapien and Evolut THV series in patients with aortic stenosis?
p-value: P=0.02 vs Sapien; P>0.99 vs Evolut
The Myval THV series demonstrates short-term hemodynamic performance comparable to the Evolut THV series and superior to the Sapien THV series, particularly regarding the incidence of moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch.
Introduction Several factors, including device design, annulus size, and sizing strategies, influence transcatheter heart valve (THV) hemodynamic outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis(AS). This substudy evaluates early (30-day) echocardiographic outcomes of the Myval, Sapien, and Evolut THV series, focusing on hemodynamic performance and valve durability. Methodology The LANDMARK trial is a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing 384 patients implanted with Myval THV series to 384 receiving Sapien and Evolut THV series. Hemodynamic assessments followed Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 recommendations. Results At 30-day, hemodynamic device success rates were 85.9%, 77.8, and 85.4% for Myval, Sapien, and Evolut THV series, respectively (PMyval-Sapien=0.02 and PMyval-Evolut>0.99). Significant improvements in peak aortic flow velocity, pressure gradients, effective orifice area(EOA), Doppler velocity index(DVI), and cardiac indices were observed across all groups, except for unchanged left ventricular ejection fraction. Moderate prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) was less frequent with Myval THV series(10.7%) versus Sapien THV series(22.5%), but higher than Evolut THV series (6.0%)(PMyval-Sapien=0.0006, PMyval-Evolut=0.12), while severe PPM showed no significant differences(4.3% vs 6.5% vs 1.8%; PMyval-Sapien=0.40, PMyval-Evolut=0.23). Total aortic regurgitation (≥moderate) showed no significant difference for Myval (2.6%), Sapien(1.8%) or Evolut THV series (6.3%)(PMyval-Sapien=0.76, PMyval-Evolut=0.06). Myval THV series required minimal oversizing compared to Evolut THV series (P<0.0001). Conclusion The Myval THV series demonstrates short-term hemodynamic performance comparable to Evolut THV series and superior to Sapien THV series in moderate PPM incidence. Including intermediate sizes minimizes oversizing, underscoring its potential as an alternative for TAVI patients. Long-term follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soliman et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in aortic stenosis (n=768). Myval THV series vs. Sapien and Evolut THV series was evaluated on 30-day hemodynamic device success (p=P=0.02 vs Sapien; P>0.99 vs Evolut). The Myval THV series achieved a 30-day hemodynamic device success rate of 85.9%, compared to 77.8% for the Sapien THV (P=0.02) and 85.4% for the Evolut THV (P>0.99).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: