Why the study?
Up to 40% of patients with aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement have a small annulus, which influences valve hemodynamics, durability, and clinical outcomes, but optimal surgical and transcatheter strategies remain unclear.
Do supra-annular self-expanding valves improve hemodynamics and reduce severe patient-prosthesis mismatch or mortality compared to other valve designs and SAVR in patients with small aortic annuli?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,843)
Do supra-annular self-expanding valves improve hemodynamics and reduce severe patient-prosthesis mismatch or mortality compared to other valve designs and SAVR in patients with small aortic annuli?
p-value: p=< .05
In patients with small aortic annuli, supra-annular self-expanding valves offer a superior hemodynamic profile and lower risk of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch compared to other designs, though 1-year hard clinical outcomes remain similar.
Supports supra-annular self-expanding valves in small annuli; challenges balloon-expandable preference and extends observational data for RCT validation.
Objectives: Up to 40% of patients with aortic stenosis undergoing valve replacement have a small annulus, a key determinant of valve hemodynamics, durability, and clinical outcomes. Surgical and transcatheter approaches have been reported to be determined by prosthesis design, considering the operative mortality and morbidity risk. The authors sought to evaluate surgical and transcatheter strategies in patients with small aortic annuli. Methods: The authors systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence of 20 studies including 8843 patients. Primary outcomes included all-cause death and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic structural and non-structural valve dysfunction, postprocedural hemodynamics (indexed effective orifice area [iEOA] and mean transvalvular gradients), and major clinical events. Results: Compared with supra-annular self-expanding valves (SAV), intra-annular devices and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) were associated with higher risks of severe PPM (P < .05) without differences in 1-year mortality (P > .05). Balloon-expandable valves were associated with increased hemodynamic structural dysfunction (risk ratio [RR], 4.44; 95% CI, 2.08-9.45), smaller iEOA (mean difference [MD], -0.18 cm²/m²; 95% CI, -0.24 - -0.11), and higher gradients (MD 4.72 mm Hg; 95% CI, 3.52-5.92). SAVR showed the worst hemodynamics, but lower risk of paravalvular leak (RR, 0.12; 95% CI; 0.03-0.54), pacemaker implantation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI; 0.20-0.94) and major vascular complications (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.08-0.47). Stroke, major bleeding, and heart failure hospitalization events were similar among groups. Conclusions: In patients with small annuli, SAV showed superior hemodynamic profile and the lowest risk of dysfunction. These differences did not translate into a lower incidence of hard clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiabrando et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Aortic stenosis with a small annulus (n=8,843). Supra-annular self-expanding valves (SAV) vs. Intra-annular devices, balloon-expandable valves, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on All-cause death and severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (p=< .05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: