Zade Bihag, Jay Patel, Jeff F Mather, Robert Hagberg, Jawad Haider, Talhat Azemi, Immad Sadiq, Mohiuddin Cheema, Bryan Piccirillo, Sheelagh Pousatis, Priyesh Thakurathi, David Yaffee, Sabet W Hashim, Raymond G McKay
{"title":"6 Year Follow-Up of Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.","authors":"Zade Bihag, Jay Patel, Jeff F Mather, Robert Hagberg, Jawad Haider, Talhat Azemi, Immad Sadiq, Mohiuddin Cheema, Bryan Piccirillo, Sheelagh Pousatis, Priyesh Thakurathi, David Yaffee, Sabet W Hashim, Raymond G McKay","doi":"10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior reports comparing long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) versus self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been limited. We compared in-hospital, 1-year, and 6-year outcomes in 1,685 BE (S3, Ultra) versus 776 SE (Evolut R, PRO, PRO+) patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at a single center. Valve-in-valve and non-transfemoral access cases were excluded. Propensity-score matched BE (n=683) and SE (n=680) cohorts did not differ with respect to age (82.2±8.0 vs 82.1±7.8 years, p=0.407), baseline demographics and comorbidities, pre-TAVI echo and cardiac catheterization results, and STS Risk Score (7.9±5.9 vs 7.9±5.5%, p=0.481). BE vs SE patients had similar in-hospital mortality (0.9 vs 0.6%, p=0.0.072), stroke (1.3 vs 1.8%, p=0.503), major vascular complications (2.8 vs 2.2%, p=0.495) and composite bleeding (4.7 vs 3.4%, p=0.178), although the BE cohort required fewer permanent pacemakers (8.3 vs 13.3%, p=0.003). At 1-year, BE and SE patients had similar all-cause mortality (10.8 vs 11.2%, p=0.825), hospital readmission (22.5 vs 19.6%, p=0.192), and KCCQ12 scores (83.7±25.5 vs 83.0±24.6, p=0.606). At a median follow-up of 77.0 (72.6-81.5) months, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated no difference in BE vs SE all-cause mortality (33.2 vs 40.4%, p=0.586), with no differences in late valve-related outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, AV endocarditis, and AV re-intervention (balloon aortic valvuloplasty, percutaneous paravalvular leak closure, repeat TAVI, surgical AV replacement). However, BE patients more commonly required treatment for subclinical leaflet thrombosis, while SE patients had a higher incidence of transient ischemic attack during follow-up. In conclusion, BE and SE TAVI patients have similar in-hospital, 1-year and median 6-year adverse outcomes, other than higher subclinical leaflet thrombosis in BE patients and an increased transient ischemic attack rate in SE patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7705,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.06.002","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Prior reports comparing long-term outcomes of balloon-expandable (BE) versus self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been limited. We compared in-hospital, 1-year, and 6-year outcomes in 1,685 BE (S3, Ultra) versus 776 SE (Evolut R, PRO, PRO+) patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at a single center. Valve-in-valve and non-transfemoral access cases were excluded. Propensity-score matched BE (n=683) and SE (n=680) cohorts did not differ with respect to age (82.2±8.0 vs 82.1±7.8 years, p=0.407), baseline demographics and comorbidities, pre-TAVI echo and cardiac catheterization results, and STS Risk Score (7.9±5.9 vs 7.9±5.5%, p=0.481). BE vs SE patients had similar in-hospital mortality (0.9 vs 0.6%, p=0.0.072), stroke (1.3 vs 1.8%, p=0.503), major vascular complications (2.8 vs 2.2%, p=0.495) and composite bleeding (4.7 vs 3.4%, p=0.178), although the BE cohort required fewer permanent pacemakers (8.3 vs 13.3%, p=0.003). At 1-year, BE and SE patients had similar all-cause mortality (10.8 vs 11.2%, p=0.825), hospital readmission (22.5 vs 19.6%, p=0.192), and KCCQ12 scores (83.7±25.5 vs 83.0±24.6, p=0.606). At a median follow-up of 77.0 (72.6-81.5) months, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated no difference in BE vs SE all-cause mortality (33.2 vs 40.4%, p=0.586), with no differences in late valve-related outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, AV endocarditis, and AV re-intervention (balloon aortic valvuloplasty, percutaneous paravalvular leak closure, repeat TAVI, surgical AV replacement). However, BE patients more commonly required treatment for subclinical leaflet thrombosis, while SE patients had a higher incidence of transient ischemic attack during follow-up. In conclusion, BE and SE TAVI patients have similar in-hospital, 1-year and median 6-year adverse outcomes, other than higher subclinical leaflet thrombosis in BE patients and an increased transient ischemic attack rate in SE patients.
先前比较球囊膨胀性(BE)与自膨胀性(SE)经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)长期结果的报道有限。我们比较了1,685名BE (S3, Ultra)和776名SE (Evolut R, PRO, PRO+)患者在单一中心接受经股TAVI的住院、1年和6年的结果。排除瓣膜内和非经股通路病例。倾向评分匹配的BE组(n=683)和SE组(n=680)在年龄(82.2±8.0 vs 82.1±7.8岁,p=0.407)、基线人口统计学和合并症、tavi前回声和心导管检查结果以及STS风险评分(7.9±5.9 vs 7.9±5.5%,p=0.481)方面均无差异。BE组与SE组的住院死亡率(0.9 vs 0.6%, p=0.0.072)、卒中(1.3 vs 1.8%, p=0.503)、主要血管并发症(2.8 vs 2.2%, p=0.495)和复合出血(4.7 vs 3.4%, p=0.178)相似,尽管BE组需要较少的永久性起搏器(8.3 vs 13.3%, p=0.003)。1年后,BE和SE患者的全因死亡率(10.8 vs 11.2%, p=0.825)、再入院率(22.5 vs 19.6%, p=0.192)和KCCQ12评分(83.7±25.5 vs 83.0±24.6,p=0.606)相似。在中位随访77.0(72.6-81.5)个月时,Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示BE与SE的全因死亡率无差异(33.2% vs 40.4%, p=0.586),晚期瓣膜相关结局无差异,包括心肌梗死、卒中、房室心内膜炎和房室再干预(球囊主动脉瓣成形术、经皮瓣旁泄漏关闭、重复TAVI、手术房室置换术)。然而,BE患者更常需要治疗亚临床小叶血栓形成,而SE患者在随访中有更高的短暂性脑缺血发作发生率。综上所述,BE和SE TAVI患者的住院、1年和6年不良结局相似,只是BE患者的亚临床小叶血栓形成较高,SE患者的短暂性脑缺血发作率较高。
期刊介绍:
Published 24 times a year, The American Journal of Cardiology® is an independent journal designed for cardiovascular disease specialists and internists with a subspecialty in cardiology throughout the world. AJC is an independent, scientific, peer-reviewed journal of original articles that focus on the practical, clinical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. AJC has one of the fastest acceptance to publication times in Cardiology. Features report on systemic hypertension, methodology, drugs, pacing, arrhythmia, preventive cardiology, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease, and cardiomyopathy. Also included are editorials, readers'' comments, and symposia.