Key result
SAPIEN XT linked to ~2.3-fold higher rate of bioprosthetic valve failure vs SAPIEN 3.
Why the study?
In populations with substantial competing mortality or heterogeneous follow-up durations, the estimated incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure after TAVI may vary according to evaluation metric.
Does TAVI with SAPIEN XT compared to SAPIEN 3 result in higher rates of bioprosthetic valve failure when evaluating exposure-adjusted event rates?
Cohort
Yes
Does TAVI with SAPIEN XT compared to SAPIEN 3 result in higher rates of bioprosthetic valve failure when evaluating exposure-adjusted event rates?
Exposure-adjusted event rates provide a more accurate and complementary method for evaluating bioprosthetic valve failure across different TAVI generations, especially given heterogeneous follow-up and competing mortality risks.
Supports exposure-adjusted rates for TAVI durability comparisons; extends VARC-3 applications but leaves clinical implications open.
BACKGROUND Bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) is a key clinical endpoint for evaluating valve durability after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, in populations with substantial competing mortality or heterogeneous follow-up durations, the estimated incidence of BVF may vary according to evaluation metric. We evaluated how different analytic approaches influence estimates of the long-term BVF incidence. METHODS We analyzed data from a multicenter registry of patients undergoing TAVI with balloon-expandable valves (SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3). Outcomes of interest were all-cause death and BVF, defined according to VARC-3 criteria. Incidence of BVF was evaluated using both cumulative incidence analysis with competing-risk methodology and exposure-adjusted event rates per 1000 patient-years. Valve generations (SAPIEN XT vs SAPIEN 3) were examined as a representative comparison. RESULTS Follow-up duration differed substantially between the two valve groups, with longer exposure in the SAPIEN XT. Although the cumulative incidence of BVF was higher with SAPIEN XT, death was the predominant competing event at the 8-year horizon. After accounting for exposure time, the overall BVF rate was significantly higher with SAPIEN XT than with SAPIEN 3 (13.1 vs. 5.7 events per 1000 patient-years, p < 0.01). Most BVF events were related to nonstructural mechanism, particularly paravalvular leakage and prosthetic valve endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS In the presence of heterogeneous follow-up durations and competing mortality, cumulative incidence-based estimates may not fully characterize valve-related outcomes. Exposure-adjusted event rates provide complementary information for comparing BVF across valve generations. These findings highlight the importance of selecting appropriate analytic approaches when interpreting BVF after TAVI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hioki et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). SAPIEN XT vs. SAPIEN 3 was evaluated on Bioprosthetic valve failure (p=< 0.01). SAPIEN XT was associated with a significantly higher overall bioprosthetic valve failure rate compared to SAPIEN 3 (13.1 vs. 5.7 events per 1000 patient-years, p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: