Intra- versus supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter heart valves in small aortic annuli.

BACKGROUND

Clinical data are scarce comparing supra-annular self-expanding valves (SA-SEVs) and intra-annular (IA)-SEVs after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), particularly in patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA).

AIMS: We aimed to compare early clinical outcomes, including echocardiographic parameters, between the latest generation of IA-SEV and SA-SEV after TAVI in patients with SAA.

METHODS

Focused on patients with SAA, defined as an annulus area ≤430 mm2, the data of 919 patients who underwent TAVI with an IA-SEV (n=518, Navitor) or an SA-SEV (n=401, Evolut FX) were retrospectively extracted. Differences in valve design on postprocedural results were investigated between the two groups and in the propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort.

RESULTS

The postprocedural effective orifice area (EOA), indexed EOA, and mean pressure gradient (mPG) were similar in the overall cohort between the two groups (allp>0.05), whereas the mPG was higher with IA-SEVs than with SA-SEVs (8.74±5.01 mmHg vs 7.84±4.43 mmHg; p=0.049) after PSM (n=219 patients/group). There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (1.9% vs 0.9%; p=0.405) or paravalvular leakage ≥mild (34.1% vs 42.2%; p=0.084) between the 2 groups in the PSM cohort. The rates of technical success (95.9% vs 95.8%), device success at discharge (91.3% vs 87.8%), and in-hospital death (1.4% vs 0.5%) were comparable in the overall cohort (allp>0.05). These results were not changed in the PSM cohort (allp>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The latest-generation IA-SEV and SA-SEV demonstrated similar clinical results except for a few echocardiographic findings after TAVI in patients with SAA.