Key result
Omitting BAV during TF-TAVI shows no difference in 30-day safety versus routine predilation.
Why the study?
Predilation of the native valve in TF-TAVI has been considered necessary despite little trial evidence supporting its clinical use, mostly based on retrospective observational data.
Does omitting balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) predilation improve procedural outcomes and maintain safety in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI)?
Cohort (n=196)
Open-label
Yes
Does omitting balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) predilation improve procedural outcomes and maintain safety in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI)?
Odds Ratio: 2.55 (95% CI 0.56–18.84)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.3% vs 8.9%
Omitting balloon aortic valvuloplasty predilation during transfemoral TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve is safe and associated with shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times.
Omitting BAV predilation appears feasible in selected TF-TAVI cases; leaves open whether it shortens procedures without compromising safety in randomized trials.
Background: Predilation of the native valve has long been deemed necessary in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI), despite little trial evidence to support its clinical use. As most evidence is derived from retrospective analyses of observational studies, we conducted a two-armed, prospective multicentre registry. Methods: Patients undergoing TF-TAVI with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve, with or without balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV), were included and their procedural characteristics, short-term safety and short-term efficacy outcomes compared. We hypothesised that BAV may be safely omitted in many patients and omission could be associated with procedural benefits. Results: Overall, 196 consecutive patients underwent TF-TAVI, 56 with BAV and 140 without. The mean age was 81.2±6.2 years, and the mean logistic EuroSCORE I was 17.1±13.6. Device success according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) was achieved in 96.4%. The median procedural duration was shorter without BAV (56 min vs 90 min; p=0.001), as was fluoroscopy time (10 min vs 13 min; p=0.001). The need for balloon postdilation was less frequent in patients without BAV (15.7% vs 30.4%, p=0.029). There was no difference in the proportion of patients meeting the VARC-2 defined composite safety endpoint at 30 days (9.3% without vs 8.9% with BAV; adjusted OR (adjOR) 2.55; 95% CI 0.56 to 18.84) and at 6 months (15.2% without vs 16.4% with BAV; adjOR 1.66; 95% CI 0.49 to 6.55). Conclusions: In the majority of patients, BAV can be safely omitted from the TAVI procedure without adverse effects. The omission of BAV is associated with shorter procedural duration and could be advantageous for the majority of patients. Trial registration number: NCT02760771.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schymik et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Valvular heart disease (Aortic stenosis) (n=196). Omission of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) during TF-TAVI vs. Performance of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) during TF-TAVI was evaluated on VARC-2 defined composite safety endpoint at 30 days (all-cause mortality, stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and permanent pacemaker implantation) (adjOR 2.55, 95% CI 0.56 to 18.84). Omission of balloon aortic valvuloplasty during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation did not significantly affect the 30-day composite safety endpoint compared to performing it (adjOR 2.55).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: