Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2026
Balloon- Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Valves for Failed Small Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: 3-Year Results of the LYTEN Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cepas-Guillén Pedro, Abbas Amr E, Serra Vicenç, Vilalta Victoria, Nombela-Franco Luis, Regueiro Ander, Al-Azizi Karim M, Iskander Ayman, Conradi Lenard, Forcillo Jessica, Lilly Scott, Calabuig Álvaro, Fernandez-Nofrerias Eduard, Mohammadi Siamak, Giuliani Carlos, Pelletier-Beaumont Emilie, Pibarot Philippe, Rodés-Cabau Josep
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data comparing valve systems in the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) field have been obtained from retrospective studies. This prespecified secondary analysis of the LYTEN randomized trial (Comparison of the Balloon-Expandable Edwards Valve and Self-Expandable CoreValve Evolut R or Evolut PRO System for the Treatment of Small, Severely Dysfunctional Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses) aims to compare the 3-year hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes between balloon-expandable valves (BEV) SAPIEN 3/ULTRA (Edwards Lifesciences) and self-expanding valves (SEV) Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ (Medtronic) in valve-in-valve TAVR.
METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 3-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC (Valve Academic Research Consortium)-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25, and less than moderate aortic regurgitation.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent TAVR (46 BEV [SAPIEN 3/ULTRA], 52 SEV [Evolut R-PRO-PRO+]). At 3 years, patients receiving a SEV had a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 27.6% versus SEV: 82.4%; P<0.001), with lower mean gradients (BEV: 20±9 versus SEV: 13±9 mm Hg; P=0.002), and larger indexed effective orifice area (BEV: 0.69±0.27 versus SEV: 0.93±0.32 cm2/m2; P=0.002). The rate of moderate aortic regurgitation was 0% in the BEV group versus 2.9% in the SEV group (P=0.582). Functional status and quality of life improved similarly in both groups. No differences were observed in the composite end point of death, stroke, or heart failure-related hospitalization (BEV: 32.6% versus SEV: 25.5%; P=0.489). Mortality was also not statistically different between groups (BEV: 23.3% versus SEV: 15.7%; P=0.375). No significant differences were observed in other adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, SEV demonstrated a superior valve hemodynamic performance at 3-year follow-up, with similar clinical outcomes and functional improvement compared with BEV.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03520101.
METHODS: Patients with a failed small (≤23 mm) surgical valve undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR were randomized to receive a SEV or a BEV. Patients had a clinical and valve hemodynamic (Doppler echocardiography) evaluation at 3-year follow-up. Study outcomes were defined according to VARC (Valve Academic Research Consortium)-2/VARC-3 criteria. Intended performance of the valve was defined as mean gradient <20 mm Hg, peak velocity <3 m/s, Doppler velocity index ≥0.25, and less than moderate aortic regurgitation.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent TAVR (46 BEV [SAPIEN 3/ULTRA], 52 SEV [Evolut R-PRO-PRO+]). At 3 years, patients receiving a SEV had a higher rate of intended valve performance (BEV: 27.6% versus SEV: 82.4%; P<0.001), with lower mean gradients (BEV: 20±9 versus SEV: 13±9 mm Hg; P=0.002), and larger indexed effective orifice area (BEV: 0.69±0.27 versus SEV: 0.93±0.32 cm2/m2; P=0.002). The rate of moderate aortic regurgitation was 0% in the BEV group versus 2.9% in the SEV group (P=0.582). Functional status and quality of life improved similarly in both groups. No differences were observed in the composite end point of death, stroke, or heart failure-related hospitalization (BEV: 32.6% versus SEV: 25.5%; P=0.489). Mortality was also not statistically different between groups (BEV: 23.3% versus SEV: 15.7%; P=0.375). No significant differences were observed in other adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing valve-in-valve TAVR for failed small aortic bioprostheses, SEV demonstrated a superior valve hemodynamic performance at 3-year follow-up, with similar clinical outcomes and functional improvement compared with BEV.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03520101.