Key result
Supra-annular valves show no significant benefit over intra-annular valves for 12-month MACCE after ViV-TAVR.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
Comparative data on echocardiographic and clinical outcomes between supra-annular and intra-annular self-expanding valves in ViV-TAVR have been limited, necessitating further evaluation.
Does the use of supra-annular self-expanding valves compared with intra-annular self-expanding valves improve echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=683)
Yes
Does the use of supra-annular self-expanding valves compared with intra-annular self-expanding valves improve echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 7.1% vs 11.9%
p-value: p=0.129
Both supra-annular and intra-annular self-expanding valves provide similar and favorable clinical and hemodynamic outcomes at 12 months following valve-in-valve TAVR.
BACKGROUND Self-expanding valves appear to have superior hemodynamics compared with balloon-expandable valves for valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR). OBJECTIVES This study aimed to compare echocardiographic and clinical outcome data between supra-annular self-expanding valves (SASEVs) and intra-annular self-expanding valves (IASEVs), which in the past has remained limited, raising the need for further evaluation. METHODS We analyzed ViV-TAVR procedures in the ACOR (Australian Cardiovascular Outcomes Registry). Patients receiving SASEV or IASEV were included. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and postprocedure and 12-month outcomes were assessed. Echocardiographic parameters included gradients and left ventricular ejection fraction. Clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. RESULTS A total of 683 patients underwent ViV-TAVR: 566 (82.9%) with SASEV and 117 (17.1%) with IASEV. Baseline demographics were similar, although IASEV had higher rates of heart failure and a higher rate of baseline bioprosthetic valve regurgitation. Postprocedure echocardiographic findings were similar in both groups, with comparable mean gradients (14.9 mm Hg vs 13.3 mm Hg; P = 0.070), peak atrioventricular velocities (2.5 m/s vs 2.4 m/s; P = 0.073) and Dimensionless Performance Index (SASEV 0.4 vs IASEV 0.5; P < 0.001). At 12 months, although not statistically significant, there was a numerical trend toward higher major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.9% vs 7.1%; P = 0.129) and stroke rates (5.4% vs 1.7%; P = 0.058) in the IASEV group. No significant differences were observed in mortality or bleeding. Findings were consistent after propensity score adjustment and multivariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS Both SASEV and IASEV provide favorable and similar hemodynamic and clinical outcomes following ViV-TAVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n=683). Supra-annular self-expanding valves (SASEVs) vs. Intra-annular self-expanding valves (IASEVs) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 12 months (p=0.129). Supra-annular self-expanding valves provided similar clinical outcomes to intra-annular valves following ViV-TAVR, with no significant difference in 12-month MACCE (7.1% vs 11.9%; P=0.129).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: