Why the study?
Balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves have shown promising results in Western populations, but comparative evaluations of their hemodynamics and early clinical outcomes in Chinese populations were needed.
Does the use of balloon-expandable valves compared to self-expanding valves improve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in Chinese patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
Does the use of balloon-expandable valves compared to self-expanding valves improve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in Chinese patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR?
Balloon-expandable and self-expanding valves for transfemoral TAVR are comparably safe and effective in a Chinese population, though BEV requires less pre- and post-dilation while presenting higher initial transaortic gradients.
Comparable short-term TAVR outcomes with BEV and SEV in Chinese patients; leaves open need for randomized long-term data.
Background: Balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have shown promising results in Western populations. Herein, we comparatively evaluated their hemodynamics and early clinical outcomes in a Chinese population. Methods: One hundred seventy-eight patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who had undergone transfemoral TAVR using SEV (n=153; Venus-A, 97; VitaFlow, 56) or BEV (n=25; Sapien3) from September 2020 to April 2021 were retrospectively enrolled, and 25 pairs were propensity-score matched for 10 baseline variables. The primary study outcomes were aortic valve hemodynamics and postoperative complications at discharge and 3-month follow-up. Results: TAVR was successful in all patients. Compared with SEV group, the BEV group had similarly distributed baseline characteristics, procedural time, hospital stay, new pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular regurgitation grade. We also observed that the BEV group had lower rates of balloon pre-dilation (60% vs. 92%, P=0.018), post-dilation (0 vs. 20%, P=0.050) and second valve implantation (0 vs. 24%, P=0.022); higher mean transaortic gradient (14.3±6.1 vs. 10.8±4.9, P=0.030) and proportion of patients with elevated gradients (20% vs. 0, P=0.050) at discharge; and similar rehospitalization, mean transaortic gradient, new pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular regurgitation grade than the SEV group at the 3-month follow-up. There were no deaths in either group. However, the proportion of patients with elevated gradients in SEV group was higher at 3 months than before discharge (24% vs. 0, P=0.022). Conclusions: BEV and SEV for transfemoral TAVR appear comparably safe and effective, with high device success and favorable 3-month clinical outcomes. However, the transaortic gradient and new pacemaker implantation in the SEV group increased during follow-up, warranting larger studies with longer-term follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ouyang et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: