Philippe Pibarot1, Neil J Weissman2, William J Stewart3, Rebecca T Hahn4, Brian R Lindman5, Thomas McAndrew6, Susheel K Kodali4, Michael J Mack7, Vinod H Thourani8, D Craig Miller9, Lars G Svensson10, Howard C Herrmann11, Craig R Smith4, Josep Rodés-Cabau12, John Webb13, Scott Lim14, Ke Xu6, Irene Hueter15, Pamela S Douglas16, Martin B Leon4. 1. Québec Heart and Lung Institute/Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: philippe.pibarot@med.ulaval.ca. 2. Medstar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 4. Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York; The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. 5. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 6. The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. 7. Baylor Healthcare System, Dallas, Texas. 8. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 10. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 11. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 12. Québec Heart and Lung Institute/Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Laval University, Québec, Canada. 13. University of British Columbia and St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. 14. University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville, Virginia. 15. Columbia University Medical Center/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 16. Duke University Medical Center and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. METHODS: The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2), or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts. RESULTS: The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort. METHODS: The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2), or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts. RESULTS: The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894).
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Martin B Leon; Susheel Kodali; Mathew Williams; Mehmet Oz; Craig Smith; Allan Stewart; Allan Schwartz; Michael Collins; Jeffrey W Moses Journal: Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006
Authors: William A Zoghbi; John B Chambers; Jean G Dumesnil; Elyse Foster; John S Gottdiener; Paul A Grayburn; Bijoy K Khandheria; Robert A Levine; Gerald Ross Marx; Fletcher A Miller; Satoshi Nakatani; Miguel A Quiñones; Harry Rakowski; L Leonardo Rodriguez; Madhav Swaminathan; Alan D Waggoner; Neil J Weissman; Miguel Zabalgoitia Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Apostolos Tzikas; Nicolo Piazza; Marcel L Geleijnse; Nicolas Van Mieghem; Rutger-Jan Nuis; Carl Schultz; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Tjebbe W Galema; Arie-Pieter Kappetein; Patrick W Serruys; Peter P de Jaegere Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Marie-Annick Clavel; John G Webb; Philippe Pibarot; Lukas Altwegg; Eric Dumont; Chris Thompson; Robert De Larochellière; Daniel Doyle; Jean-Bernard Masson; Sebastien Bergeron; Olivier F Bertrand; Josep Rodés-Cabau Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dania Mohty; Jean G Dumesnil; Najmeddine Echahidi; Patrick Mathieu; François Dagenais; Pierre Voisine; Philippe Pibarot Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nicholas Chew; Jimmy Kim Fatt Hon; Wei Luen James Yip; Siew Pang Chan; Kian-Keong Poh; William Kok-Fai Kong; Kristine Leok Kheng Teoh; Tiong Cheng Yeo; Huay Cheem Tan; Edgar Lik Wui Tay Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 1.858