Mohamed Abdel-Wahab1, Martin Landt2, Franz-Josef Neumann3, Steffen Massberg4, Christian Frerker5, Thomas Kurz6, Jatinderjit Kaur2, Ralph Toelg2, Susanne Sachse2, David Jochheim4, Ulrich Schäfer5, Mohamed El-Mawardy7, Derek R Robinson8, Gert Richardt2. 1. Heart Center Leipzig at the University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: mohamed.abdel-wahab@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Heart Center, Segeberger Kliniken, Bad Segeberg, Germany. 3. University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany. 4. Munich University Clinic, Munich, Germany. 5. Cardiology Department, Asklepios Clinic St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Cardiology Department, Lübeck University Hospital, Lübeck, Germany. 7. Cardiology Department, Vivantes Wenckebach Hospital, Berlin, Germany. 8. Mathematics Department, University of Sussex, Brighton, England.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years. BACKGROUND: The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV. METHODS: The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability. RESULTS: After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BE patients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BE patients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and echocardiographic outcome data of the CHOICE (Randomized Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Medtronic CoreValve Versus Edwards SAPIEN XT) trial at 5 years. BACKGROUND: The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV. METHODS: The CHOICE trial is an investigator-initiated trial that randomized 241 high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and an anatomy suitable for treatment with both BE and SE THVs to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device. The primary endpoint was device success. Patients were followed up to 5 years, with assessment of clinical outcomes, and echocardiographic evaluation of valve function and THV durability. RESULTS: After 5 years, there were no statistically significant differences between BE and SE valves in the cumulative incidence of death from any cause (53.4% vs. 47.6%; p = 0.38), death from cardiovascular causes (31.6% vs. 21.5%; p = 0.12), all strokes (17.5% vs. 16.5%; p = 0.73), and repeat hospitalization for heart failure (28.9% vs. 22.5%; p = 0.75). SE patients had larger prosthetic valve area (1.6 ± 0.5 cm2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm2; p = 0.02) with a lower mean transprosthetic gradient (12.2 ± 8.7 mm Hg vs. 6.9 ± 2.7 mm Hg; p = 0.001) at 5 years. No differences were observed in the rates of paravalvular regurgitation. Clinical valve thrombosis occurred in 7 BEpatients (7.3%) and 1 SE patient (0.8%; p = 0.06), and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration in 6 BEpatients (6.6%) and no SE patient (0%; p = 0.018). The rate of bioprosthetic valve failure was low and not significantly different between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Five-year follow-up of patients in the CHOICE trial revealed clinical outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early-generation BE and SE valves that were not statistically significantly different, with limited statistical power. Forward flow hemodynamics were significantly better with the SE valve. Moderate or severe structural valve deterioration was uncommon but occurred more frequently with the BE valve. (A Comparison of Transcatheter Heart Valves in High Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: The CHOICE Trial [CHOICE]; NCT01645202).
Authors: Peter E Umukoro; Paul Yeung-Lai-Wah; Sunil Pathak; Sabri Elkhidir; Deepa Soodi; Brooke Delgoffe; Richard Berg; Kelley P Anderson; Romel J Garcia-Montilla Journal: Clin Med Res Date: 2020-10-14
Authors: Nicholas Aroney; Tiffany Patterson; Christopher Allen; Simon Redwood; Bernard Prendergast Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Constantin von Zur Mühlen; Klaus Kaier; Peter Stachon; Philip Hehn; Dennis Wolf; Timo Heidt; Vera Oettinger; Manfred Zehender; Christoph Bode Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ankur Panchal; Andreas Kyvernitakis; Geetha Rayarao; Mark Doyle; Robert W W Biederman Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Pier Pasquale Leone; Fabio Fazzari; Francesco Cannata; Jorge Sanz-Sanchez; Antonio Mangieri; Lorenzo Monti; Ottavia Cozzi; Giulio Giuseppe Stefanini; Renato Bragato; Antonio Colombo; Bernhard Reimers; Damiano Regazzoli Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-06-04
Authors: Alexander E Kostyunin; Arseniy E Yuzhalin; Maria A Rezvova; Evgeniy A Ovcharenko; Tatiana V Glushkova; Anton G Kutikhin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501