Key result
Self-expanding TAVR linked to ~13% lower acute device success vs balloon-expandable valves in elliptic annuli.
Why the study?
The influence of an elliptic aortic annulus on acute device success rates following self-expanding versus balloon-expandable TAVR was unclear.
Does self-expanding TAVR compared to balloon-expandable TAVR improve acute device success in patients with elliptic aortic annuli?
Cohort (n=737)
No
Does self-expanding TAVR compared to balloon-expandable TAVR improve acute device success in patients with elliptic aortic annuli?
Absolute Event Rate: 82.5% vs 95.3%
p-value: p=0.002
In patients with elliptic aortic annuli undergoing TAVR, self-expanding valves have lower acute device success compared to balloon-expandable valves unless optimally oversized (≥17.5%).
Self-expanding valves were associated with lower device success in elliptic annuli; leaves open whether optimal oversizing improves outcomes in prospective trials.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of an elliptic annulus on acute device success rates following self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. balloon-expandable (BE) TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcomes were assessed using Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions. Aortic annulus ratio (AAR) was measured as short axis diameter/long axis diameter. Mean AAR was 0.81±0.06. Patients were therefore divided into 2 groups: AAR <0.82 and AAR ≥0.82. For circular annuli (AAR ≥0.82; 363 patients), high device success rates were achieved in both valve groups (SE valve, 90.5% vs. BE valve, 95.0%, P=0.14). Conversely, for AAR <0.82 (374 patients), SE valves had lower device success rates than BE valves (82.5% vs. 95.3%, P=0.002). For elliptic annuli, SE-TAVR was an independent predictor of unsuccessful device implantation (OR, 6.34, P<0.001). Nonetheless, increased oversizing of SE valves for elliptic annuli was associated with an exponential rise in device success (threshold ≥17.5%; area under the curve, 0.83) but not for BE-TAVR. Furthermore, optimally oversized SE valves and BE valves had a similarly high device success for elliptic annuli (SE valve, 96.2% vs. BE valve, 95.3%). CONCLUSIONS: For circular annuli, similarly high device success was achieved for the 2 valve types. Conversely, for elliptic annuli, SE valves had a lower device success than BE valves. Device success following optimal oversizing of SE valves, however, was similar to that for BE valves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maeno et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (n=737). Self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs. Balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Acute device success for elliptic annuli (AAR <0.82) (p=0.002). In patients with elliptic aortic annuli, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves resulted in a significantly lower acute device success rate compared to balloon-expandable valves (82.5% vs. 95.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: