Outcomes of transfemoral TAVR using two new‐generation devices in patients with horizontal aorta

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundChallenging anatomies and comorbidities have impact on success in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There is controversy whether the extent of the aortic angle (AA) has an impact on procedural outcomes. Matched comparative outcome data of new generation transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in horizontal aorta (HA) are scarce.MethodsA total of 1582 patients with severe native aortic stenosis (AS) treated with the SAPIEN3 Ultra (Ultra; n = 526) or ACURATE Neo2 (Neo2; n = 1056) THVs from January 2017 to January 2023 were analyzed. Patients with non‐horizontal aortas (AA < 51.7°, n = 841) were excluded. The population was matched by 1‐to‐1 nearest‐neighbor matching (Ultra, n = 246; Neo2, n = 246). Clinical and procedural outcome were evaluated according to VARC‐3 recommendations.ResultsTechnical success (93.1% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.572) was high after Ultra and Neo2. Device success (80.5% vs. 89.8%, p = 0.05) was inferior with Ultra. Neo2 reveals superior hemodynamic properties with lower rate of severe prosthesis patient mismatch (12.0% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.001) and elevated gradients (20 mmHg: 11.9% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001). Ultra showed a lower rate of relevant paravalvular regurgitation (mild paravalvular regurgitation or Valve‐in‐Valve due to paravalvular regurgitation: 0.0% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.004). The rate of procedural bailout maneuvers (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.000) and thirty‐day all‐cause mortality (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.496) was similar.ConclusionTransfemoral TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and HA, using the balloon expandable Sapien3 Ultra and self‐expanding ACURATE Neo2 prosthesis, is feasible and safe. Therefore, valve selection between these platforms should be made irrespective of the aortic angle by a team experienced with both valves based on their specific advantages. Large, randomized trials in this sub‐group of patients would be necessary to compare long term outcomes.