Matched Comparison of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves for the Treatment of Failed Aortic Surgical Bioprosthesis
Insights From the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry (VIVID)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background—Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis. There are limited data comparing outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation using different transcatheter heart valves (THV).
Methods and Results—Patients included in the Valve-in-Valve International Data registry (VIVID) and treated with self-expanding THV devices were analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events. St. Jude Medical Portico versus Medtronic CoreValve were compared in a 1:2 fashion after propensity score matching. A total of 162 patients, Portico- (n=54) and CoreValve- (n=108) based valve-in-valve procedures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, 79±8.2 years; 60% women; mean STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score 8.1±5.5%). Postimplantation, CoreValve was associated with a larger effective orifice area (1.67 versus 1.31 cm2; P=0.001), lower mean gradient (14±7.5 versus 17±7.5 mm Hg; P=0.02), and lower core laboratory–adjudicated moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (4.2% versus 13.7%; P=0.04), compared with Portico. Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, second THV requirement, or coronary obstruction were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Survival and stroke rates at 30 days were similar, but overall mortality at 1 year was higher among patients treated with Portico compared with CoreValve (22.6% versus 9.1%; P=0.03).
Conclusions—In this first matched comparison of THVs for valve-in-valve implantations, Portico and CoreValve demonstrated differences in postprocedural hemodynamics and long-term clinical outcomes. Although this could be related to THV design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require further evaluation.
- Received August 14, 2016.
- Accepted March 21, 2017.
- © 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.