Why the study?
Valve durability is a major issue as TAVI expands to populations with longer life expectancy, requiring clarification of the incidence, comparative risk between valve types, and clinical impact of structural valve deterioration.
Does the use of balloon-expandable valves compared to self-expandable valves increase the incidence of structural valve deterioration in patients undergoing TAVI?
Does the use of balloon-expandable valves compared to self-expandable valves increase the incidence of structural valve deterioration in patients undergoing TAVI?
In a real-world registry, balloon-expandable TAVI valves were associated with a significantly higher risk of structural valve deterioration compared to self-expandable valves, which was linked to an increased risk of heart failure rehospitalization.
AIMS: Valve durability becomes a major issue as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is expanding to populations with longer life expectancy. We sought to (i) determine the incidence of structural valve deterioration (SVD), (ii) compare the incidence of SVD between balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expandable (SE) valves, and (iii) analyse the impact of SVD. METHODS AND RESULTS: 2040 patients who underwent TAVI (2007-2020) from 9 centres were included. After inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW), 1848 patients were selected (973 BE and 875 SE). SVD was defined using recent echocardiographic definitions according to VARC-3 criteria: Median follow-up was 4.2 (IQR: 2.5-5.7) years. The estimated incidence of SVD and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) at 8 years follow-up for the overall cohort were 13.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8-18%] and 11.5% (95% CI 8.9-14.8%), respectively. After IPTW and a median follow-up of 4 years, the risk of SVD (5.25% vs. 1.19%; HR 10.25, 95% CI 3.79-27.71, P < 0.001), and all-cause BVF (6.41% vs. 3.2%; HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.27-3.47 P = 0.004), was significantly higher for BE compared with SE recipients. Patients developing SVD had a trend towards a higher incidence of cardiovascular death (P = 0.06), as well as a significantly higher risk of heart failure rehospitalization (P = 0.048). After IPTW, there were no differences between BE and SE recipients in the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, heart failure rehospitalization and valve reintervention (P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: In this real-world registry, the incidence of SVD at 8 years after TAVI was relatively low. The risk of SVD was higher among BE compared with SE valve recipients. SVD was associated with an increased risk of heart failure rehospitalization and a trend towards a higher risk of cardiovascular death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: