No impact of direct implantation of a self-expanding valve on one-year clinical outcomes. Insights from the multicenter, randomized DIRECT trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Toutouzas ◽  
G Benetos ◽  
M Drakopoulou ◽  
M Karmpalioti ◽  
M Xanthopoulou ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction The DIRECT trial (Predilatation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Trial) evaluated in a randomized fashion the safety and efficacy of direct (without balloon pre-dilatation) implantation of a self-expanding valve in all comers undergoing TAVI. Purpose To investigate the impact of direct implantation of a self-expanding valve on one-year clinical outcomes. Methods DIRECT trial randomized consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis at 4 tertiary centers to undergo TAVI with the use of self-expanding prostheses with (pre-BAV) or without pre-dilatation (no-BAV). The primary endpoint was device success according to the VARC-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included periprocedural mortality and stroke, new permanent pacemaker implantation and vascular complications. All cause death, cardiac death, stroke and heart failure hospitalizations were recorded at one year and compared between the two groups using Kaplan-Meier plots. Results In total 171 patients were randomized in 4 centers. In the intention to treat analysis 86 patients were randomized to the pre-BAV group and 85 patients to the no-BAV TAVI group. The device success according to the VARC-2 criteria was non-inferior in the no-BAV group compared to the pre-BAV group (65/85 - 76.5% for no-BAV versus 64/86 – 74.4% for pre-BAV, mean difference = 2.1%, 90% CI: −8.9 to 13). In the no-BAV group 25 (29.4%) patients underwent post balloon dilatation and in the pre-BAV group 13 patients (15.1%) (p=0.03). At one year 4 deaths were recorded in pre-BAV group (4.7%) and 3 deaths in no-BAV group (3.5%). There was no difference in Kaplan-Meier plots between the two groups in all-cause mortality (log-rank p=0.72, figure). Similarly, there was no difference in one-year incidence of stroke (1 in pre-BAV and 2 in no-BAV group, log-rank p=0.55), cardiac death (log-rank p=0.66), non-cardiac death (log-rank p=0.98) and heart failure hospitalizations (1 in pre-BAV versus 3 in no-BAV group, log-rank p=0.31). Lastly, there was no difference in the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation between the two groups at one year (27/67 in no-BAV group versus 20/69 in pre-BAV group, log-rank p=0.24) Conclusions Direct transcatheter aortic valve implantation is non-inferior to the procedure with pre-dilatation in self-expanding valve. Despite the overall low rate of events, direct procedure has no impact on clinical outcomes at one year. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (20) ◽  
pp. 1890-1899 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Thomas Kurz ◽  
Hans-Josef Feistritzer ◽  
Georg Stachel ◽  
Philipp Hartung ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as established treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Technical developments in valve design have addressed previous limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leakage. However, there are only limited data available for the comparison of newer generation self-expandable valve (SEV) and balloon-expandable valve (BEV). Methods and results SOLVE-TAVI is a multicentre, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 447 patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI comparing SEV (Evolut R, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) with BEV (Sapien 3, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). The primary efficacy composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, moderate/severe prosthetic valve regurgitation, and permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was powered for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 28.4% of SEV patients and 26.1% of BEV patients meeting the prespecified criteria of equivalence [rate difference −2.39 (90% confidence interval, CI −9.45 to 4.66); Pequivalence = 0.04]. Event rates for the individual components were as follows: all-cause mortality 3.2% vs. 2.3% [rate difference −0.93 (90% CI −4.78 to 2.92); Pequivalence < 0.001], stroke 0.5% vs. 4.7% [rate difference 4.20 (90% CI 0.12 to 8.27); Pequivalence = 0.003], moderate/severe paravalvular leak 3.4% vs. 1.5% [rate difference −1.89 (90% CI −5.86 to 2.08); Pequivalence = 0.0001], and permanent pacemaker implantation 23.0% vs. 19.2% [rate difference −3.85 (90% CI −10.41 to 2.72) in SEV vs. BEV patients; Pequivalence = 0.06]. Conclusion In patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVI, newer generation SEV and BEV are equivalent for the primary valve-related efficacy endpoint. These findings support the safe application of these newer generation percutaneous valves in the majority of patients with some specific preferences based on individual valve anatomy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (18) ◽  
pp. B303
Author(s):  
Giulio Stefanini ◽  
Giuseppe Bruschi ◽  
Anna Sonia Petronio ◽  
Cristina Giannini ◽  
Claudia Fiorina ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-144
Author(s):  
Matias Sztejfman ◽  
Carlos Maximiliano Giuliani ◽  
Sebastián Peralta ◽  
Ezequiel José Zaidel ◽  
Luis Carlos Stejfman ◽  
...  

Background: Persistent bradyarrhythmias requiring permanent pacemaker implantation are a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), but high implantation with cusp-overlap technique could prevent conduction system disturbances. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the rate of pacemaker use in patients who received TAVI with conventional coplanar technique compared with cusp-overlap technique. Methods: A total of 65 consecutive patients from two centers receiving Evolut-R or Evolut-Pro valve implantation, 50 coplanar and 15 cusp-overlap, were analyzed between 2017 and 2019. Results: Mean age was 80 years, and there were no differences in risk according to the EuroSCORE. The rate of pacemaker requirement was 0% in cusp-overlap procedures compared with 24.9% in those with conventional implantation; p=0.041). In addition, cusp-overlap implants presented lower rate of major complications (6.67% vs. 42%; OR=0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.8; p=0.011). Conclusions: In this cohort, TAVI procedure with cusp-overlap technique was associated with null pacemaker requirement. Given the potential large-scale impact, external validation of results is needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document