CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Clinical Outcomes Over 5 Years After TAVR: An Analysis of the PARTNER Trials and Registries Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement Clinical impact of conduction disturbances in transcatheter aortic valve replacement recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Role of Multimodality Imaging in Common and Complex Clinical Scenarios 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Conduction Disturbances in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: REFLECT II Anticoagulation After Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

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)