Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation

  • Sung-Han Yoon
  • Tobias Schmidt
  • Sabine Bleiziffer
  • Niklas Schofer
  • Claudia Fiorina
  • Antonio J Munoz-Garcia
  • Ermela Yzeiraj
  • Ignacio J Amat-Santos
  • Didier Tchetche
  • Christian Jung
  • Buntaro Fujita
  • Antonio Mangieri
  • Marcus-Andre Deutsch
  • Timm Ubben
  • Florian Deuschl
  • Shingo Kuwata
  • Chiara De Biase
  • Timothy Williams
  • Abhijeet Dhoble
  • Won-Keun Kim
  • Enrico Ferrari
  • Marco Barbanti
  • E Mara Vollema
  • Antonio Miceli
  • Cristina Giannini
  • Guiherme F Attizzani
  • William K F Kong
  • Enrique Gutierrez-Ibanes
  • Victor Alfonso Jimenez Diaz
  • Harindra C Wijeysundera
  • Hidehiro Kaneko
  • Tarun Chakravarty
  • Moody Makar
  • Horst Sievert
  • Christian Hengstenberg
  • Bernard D Prendergast
  • Flavien Vincent
  • Mohamed Abdel-Wahab
  • Luis Nombela-Franco
  • Miriam Silaschi
  • Giuseppe Tarantini
  • Christian Butter
  • Stephan M Ensminger
  • David Hildick-Smith
  • Anna Sonia Petronio
  • Wei-Hsian Yin
  • Federico De Marco
  • Luca Testa
  • Nicolas M Van Mieghem
  • Brian K Whisenant
  • Karl-Heinz Kuck
  • Antonio Colombo
  • Saibal Kar
  • Cesar Moris
  • Victoria Delgado
  • Francesco Maisano
  • Fabian Nietlispach
  • Michael J Mack
  • Joachim Schofer
  • Ulrich Schaefer
  • Jeroen J Bax
  • Christian Frerker
  • Azeem Latib
  • Raj R Makkar

Related Research units

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist about safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure native aortic regurgitation (AR).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the outcomes of TAVR with early- and new-generation devices in symptomatic patients with pure native AR.

METHODS: From the pure native AR TAVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes were assessed according to VARC-2 criteria and compared between early- and new-generation devices.

RESULTS: A total of 331 patients with a mean STS score of 6.7 ± 6.7 underwent TAVR. The early- and new-generation devices were used in 119 patients (36.0%) and 212 patients (64.0%), respectively. STS score tended to be lower in the new-generation device group (6.2 ± 6.7 vs. 7.6 ± 6.7; p = 0.08), but transfemoral access was more frequently used in the early-generation device group (87.4% vs. 60.8%; p < 0.001). Compared with the early-generation devices, the new-generation devices were associated with a significantly higher device success rate (81.1% vs. 61.3%; p < 0.001) due to lower rates of second valve implantation (12.7% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.007) and post-procedural AR ≥ moderate (4.2% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in major 30-day endpoints between the 2 groups. The cumulative rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death at 1-year follow-up were 24.1% and 15.6%, respectively. The 1-year all-cause mortality rate was significantly higher in the patients with post-procedural AR ≥ moderate compared with those with post-procedural AR ≤ mild (46.1% vs. 21.8%; log-rank p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, post-procedural AR ≥ moderate was independently associated with 1-year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 2.85; 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 5.35; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the early-generation devices, TAVR using the new-generation devices was associated with improved procedural outcomes in treating patients with pure native AR. In patients with pure native AR, significant post-procedural AR was independently associated with increased mortality.

Bibliographical data

Original languageEnglish
ISSN0735-1097
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 05.12.2017

Comment Deanary

Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PubMed 29191323