CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Coronary Access After TAVR Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients Risk of Coronary Obstruction and Feasibility of Coronary Access After Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding Evolut Valve: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study Informed Shared Decisions for Patients with Aortic Stenosis Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valve Coronary Protection to Prevent Coronary Obstruction During TAVR: A Multicenter International Registry

Clinical TrialVolume 13, Issue 9, May 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial

Mohamed Abdel-Wahab, M Landt, Franz-Josef Neumann Keywords: aortic stenosis; balloon-expandable; durability; self-expanding; TAVR

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES -The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years.


BACKGROUND -  The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV.


METHODS - The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability.


RESULTS - After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63).


CONCLUSIONS -  Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202)