Transcatheter replacement of a failing surgical bioprosthetic valve showed durably favorable valve hemodynamics coupled with markedly improved patient functional status and excellent quality of life benefits at 5 years of follow-up in the prospective multicenter PARTNER 2 ViV Registry, Rebecca T. Hahn, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
She provided an update on previously reported 3-year outcomes in 365 patients at high to extreme surgical risk who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a 23-mm or 26-mm Sapien XT valve to address a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis. The ViV (valve-in-valve) results are quite encouraging, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
“I think that this information is changing our algorithm for how we initially make treatment decisions in our patients,” according to the cardiologist.
“We now know that we can salvage a surgical bioprosthetic valve failure with a transcatheter procedure that is relatively safe and has good outcomes out to 5 years – and that’s with a second-generation TAVR valve, not even the third-generation valve,” observed Dr. Hahn, director of interventional echocardiography at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center and professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, both in New York.
Interventionalists consider the third-generation valve, the Sapien 3, a superior platform compared to the Sapien 2 in use when the PARTNERS 2 ViV Registry started, she added.
At 5 years of follow-up since TAVR valve implantation, the all-cause mortality rate was 50.6%, up significantly from 32.7% at 3 years. However, this high mortality comes as no surprise given that registry participants had a profound comorbidity burden, as reflected in their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 9.1% at the time of TAVR. Of note, the 5-year mortality in surgically high- to extreme-risk patients in the ViV registry was comparable with the 45.9% rate at 5 years following TAVR of a native valve in intermediate-risk patients in the PARTNER 2b trial and superior to the 73% rate with TAVR of a native aortic valve in inoperable patients in PARTNER 2a, the cardiologist said.
The 5-year stroke rate in the ViV registry was 10.1%, up from 6.2% at 3 years. The cumulative incidence of death or stroke through 5 years was 53.8%.
Mortality was significantly lower in recipients of a 26-mm Sapien 2 valve than with the 23-mm version, at 40% at 5 years versus 53%. Recipients of the smaller valve were more often male, had a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease, a higher surgical risk score, a significantly smaller baseline aortic valve area, and a higher mean gradient. Dr. Hahn and her coinvestigators are now examining their data to determine if surgical valve size/patient mismatch was a major driver of adverse outcomes, as has been reported in some other datasets.
At 5 years, the rate of structural valve deterioration–related hemodynamic valve deterioration (SVD-HVD) or bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) using the soon-to-be-published Valve Academic Research Consortium–3 definitions was 6.6%. The rates of each class of valve deterioration at 5 years in this high- to extreme-risk population were 1.2 per 100 patient-years for SVD-HVD, 0.88 per 100 patient-years for all BVF, and 0.4 per 100 patient-years for SVD-related BVF.
Fully 51% of 5-year survivors were NYHA functional class I, whereas more than 90% of patients were class III or IV at baseline. The mean gradient was 16.8 mm Hg at 5 years, the Doppler velocity index was 0.35, and the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score was 74.2, all closely similar to the values at 3 years. That dramatic and sustained improvement in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire from a baseline of 43.1 points is larger than ever seen in any clinical trial of native valve TAVR, Dr. Hahn noted.
For discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD a cardiothoracic surgeon at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, the 5-year PARTNER 2 follow-up data contains a clear take-home message: “These data show that, when we as surgeons are putting in small valves, we ought to put in valves that are expandable.”
Discussant Jeroen J. Bax, MD, had one major caveat regarding the PARTNER 2 ViV Registry findings: They focused on high-surgical-risk patients.
“I think we would all agree that in high-risk patients, valve-in-valve is a better option than redo surgery. But in young, low-risk patients who are getting a bioprosthetic valve – and we’re going to be seeing more and more of them because over 90% of patients in Europe getting aortic valve surgery now are getting a bioprosthetic valve – we really don’t know what the best option is,” said Dr. Bax, professor of cardiology at the University of Leiden (the Netherlands).
He suggested a randomized trial of TAVR versus redo surgery in low-risk patients with failing bioprosthetic valves is in order, particularly in light of concerns raised by a recent report from a French national patient registry. These were “high-quality, real-world data,” Dr. Bax said, and while they showed better early outcomes for TAVR ViV than with redo surgery, there was a crossing of the curves for heart failure hospitalization already by 2 years.
“We need to look closely at younger, low-risk patients,” he concluded.
The PARTNER 2 ViV Registry is funded by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Hahn reported receiving research support from Philips Healthcare and 3Mensio and honoraria from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare.
SOURCE: Hahn RT. TCT 2020, Late breaker.