Midterm Outcomes in Patients With Aortic Stenosis Treated With Contemporary Balloon‐Expandable and Self‐Expanding Valves: Does Valve Size Have an Impact on Outcome?

Abstract

Background No data currently exist comparing the contemporary iterations of balloon‐expandable (BE) Edwards SAPIEN 3/Ultra and the self‐expanding (SE) Medtronic Evolut PRO/R34 valves. The aim of the study was the comparison of these transcatheter heart valves with emphasis on patients with small aortic annulus. Methods and Results In this retrospective registry, periprocedural outcomes and midterm all‐cause mortality were analyzed. A total of 1673 patients (917 SE versus 756 BE) were followed up for a median of 15 months. A total of 194 patients died (11.6%) during follow‐up. SE and BE groups showed similar survival at 1 (92.6% versus 90.6%) and 3 (80.3% versus 85.2%) years ( P log‐rank =0.136). Compared with the BE group, patients treated with the SE device had lower peak (16.3±8 mm Hg SE versus 21.9±8 mm Hg BE) and mean (8.8±5 mm Hg SE versus 11.5±5 mm Hg BE) gradients at discharge. Conversely, the BE group demonstrated lower rates of at least moderate paravalvular regurgitation postoperatively (5.6% versus 0.7% for SE and BE valves, respectively; P <0.001). In patients treated with small transcatheter heart valves (≤26 mm for SE and ≤23 mm for BE; N=284 for SE and N=260 for BE), survival was higher among patients treated with SE valves at both 1 (96.7% SE versus 92.1% BE) and 3 (91.8% SE versus 82.2% BE) years ( P log‐rank =0.042). In propensity‐matched patients treated with small transcatheter heart valve, there remained a trend for higher survival among the SE group at both 1 (97% SE versus 92.3% BE) and 3 years (91.8% SE versus 78.7% BE), P log‐rank =0.096). Conclusions Real‐world comparison of the latest‐generation SE and BE devices demonstrated similar survival up to 3 years’ follow‐up. In patients with small transcatheter heart valves, there may be a trend for improved survival among those treated with SE valves.