Key result
Transaortic SAPIEN 3 is linked to similar mortality but ~85% fewer major vascular complications versus XT.
Why the study?
Does the SAPIEN 3 valve improve periprocedural and 30-day outcomes compared to the SAPIEN XT valve in patients undergoing transaortic TAVI?
Observational (n=301)
Yes
Does the SAPIEN 3 valve improve periprocedural and 30-day outcomes compared to the SAPIEN XT valve in patients undergoing transaortic TAVI?
The SAPIEN 3 valve is associated with improved procedural success, fewer vascular complications, and less paravalvular regurgitation compared to the SAPIEN XT valve in transaortic TAVI.
May reduce periprocedural complications in transaortic TAVI; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials and impact on survival.
OBJECTIVES: Transaortic (TAo) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to the conventional transfemoral or transapical routes. Data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of TAo-TAVI using the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 heart valves are scarce. The objective of the current analysis was to provide such information. METHODS: ROUTE is an international, prospective, observational registry. Patients with severe calcific aortic stenosis scheduled for TAo-TAVI with an Edwards SAPIEN XT or a SAPIEN 3 heart valve were consecutively enrolled at 22 centres across Europe between February 2013 and February 2015. Periprocedural, in-hospital and 30-day complication rates were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 301 patients included, 126 (41.9%) received a SAPIEN 3 and 175 (58.1%) a SAPIEN XT. The SAPIEN 3 was associated with shorter procedure time (101 ± 35 vs 111 ± 40 min; P = 0.031) and a lower quantity of contrast agent used (87 ± 43 vs 112 ± 50 ml; P < 0.001). Balloon dilation was performed less often before (68.0% vs 78.3%; P = 0.045) and after implantation (13.6% vs 30.1%; P = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between the valve types were documented for overall (4.1% SAPIEN 3 vs 7.6% SAPIEN XT; P = 0.21), TAVI-related (0.8% vs 4.7%; P = 0.084) and cardiovascular mortality (2.4% vs 5.9%; P = 0.158). Major vascular complications were less frequent (0.8% vs 5.3%; P = 0.049), and there was a lower rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (0.8% vs 5.1%; P = 0.050) in the SAPIEN 3 group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 were safely implanted via the TAo route, though the SAPIEN 3 may be associated with a higher procedural success rate and improved prognosis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01991431.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romano et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Severe calcific aortic stenosis (n=301). SAPIEN 3 valve vs. SAPIEN XT valve was evaluated on Overall mortality (p=0.21). Transaortic TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 valve compared to SAPIEN XT resulted in similar overall mortality (4.1% vs 7.6%; P=0.21) but fewer major vascular complications (0.8% vs 5.3%; P=0.049).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: