Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is a safe alternative to conventional reoperation for bioprosthetic dysfunction. Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve (SEV) are the 2 major types of devices used. Evidence regarding the comparison of the 2 valves remains scarce.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of BEV and SEV in transcatheter VIV for aortic bioprostheses dysfunction. A computerized search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. English-language journal articles reporting SEV or BEV outcomes of at least 10 patients were included.
RESULTS: In total, 27 studies were included, with 2,269 and 1,671 patients in the BEV and SEV groups, respectively. Rates of 30-day mortality and stroke did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, BEV was associated with significantly lower rates of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8% vs. 12%; P < 0.001). Regarding echocardiographic parameters, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area at 30 days (1.53 cm2 vs. 1.23 cm2; P < 0.001) and 1 year (1.55 cm2 vs. 1.22 cm2; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: For patients who underwent transcatheter aortic VIV, SEV was associated with larger postprocedural effective orifice area but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation. These findings provide valuable information for optimizing device selection for transcatheter aortic VIV.

1. Introduction

The use of bioprosthetic valves in surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) has increased considerably during the last few decades [1], particularly in middle-aged patients, largely driven by patients’ wish of avoiding lifelong anticoagulation. However, bioprosthesis degenerates, requiring reoperation, which remains a relatively high risk. The evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has enabled a safe and feasible alternative, the transcatheter valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure, which is less invasive than conventional redo surgery and has comparable outcomes [2-6]. Considering the possibility of future transcatheter VIV, the trend of increasing use of bioprostheses in surgical AVR is likely to persist, and the need of aortic VIV is expected to grow exponentially in the future.

Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve (SEV) are the two major types of transcatheter heart valves (THVs). These two THV types are different in valve height, implantation depth, relative position of the valve and the annulus, radial force, deployment mechanism, and valve geometry and therefore may result in different outcomes and rates of complication, such as postprocedural transvalvular pressure gradient, conduction block, or paravalvular leak (PVL). Currently, there is no randomized study comparing the two types of THVs, and only few observational studies have been published, with the observation that SEV was associated with better postprocedural hemodynamic performance but higher rates of postprocedural permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation and aortic regurgitation [7, 8]. However, the most recent publication is a single-center study with limited number of patients and thus may not represent the whole population well [7]. Large cohort studies exist but are relatively outdated [8, 9]. Hence, a meta-analysis of the most recent studies is warranted to guide physicians in selecting the optimal device for VIV candidates.

2. Material and methods

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A PRISMA checklist used for this review is provided in the . The study has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018111178).

2.1. Literature search

We performed a computer search of the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the following keywords: “transcatheter”, “aortic”, “valve”, “failed”, “failing”, “degenerated”, “degeneration”, “degenerative”, “deterioration”, and “valve in valve”. The detailed search strategy is provided in the . All relevant studies published until April 2020 were identified. Review articles and meta-analyses were screened for additional studies from the cited references. The processes of searching and reviewing were independently performed by 2 evaluators (H.-A. Lee and S.-W. Chen). Discrepancies were discussed to achieve a consensus.

2.2. Study selection

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) original article with full-length content available in English, (2) at least 10 patients who underwent aortic VIV procedures for failed surgical aortic bioprosthesis using either Edwards Lifesciences or Medtronic THVs were enrolled, and (3) results of patients who underwent aortic VIV procedures with BEV or SEV were reported. Studies were excluded if they met any of the following conditions: (1) study population overlapped with another study, including subgroup studies of a main study; (2) devices other than Medtronic valves (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and Edwards Lifesciences valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) were used; and (3) VIV for failed THVs. If studies were suspected of involving an overlapping cohort, only data of the most recent publication were included for analysis.

2.3. Data extraction

Data extracted were characteristics of the enrolled studies and characteristics of patients reported, including baseline information and outcomes. Study-level characteristics included year of publication, study period, location of the study conducted, number of hospitals, and number of patients included. Baseline patient-level information included age, Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) score, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II, logistic EuroSCORE, comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, devices used, and characteristics of previous bioprosthesis. Thirty-day and 1-year outcomes were extracted, including death of any cause, cardiovascular death, stroke, coronary artery obstruction, major vascular complications, PPM implantation, major or life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, second valve required, conversion to traditional surgery, and hemodynamics of the implanted valves.

2.4. Quality assessment

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [10] was used to assess the quality of included studies, with scores ranging from 0 (lowest quality) to 8 (highest quality). Two reviewers (H.-A. Lee and S.-W. Chen) assessed the scores of each study separately; disagreements between the 2 reviewers were discussed until a consensus was achieved.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The estimates of primary and secondary outcomes derived from individual studies for each arm (Medtronic or Edwards Lifesciences valves) were pooled using the random-effects model. In contrast to the fixed-effects model, a random-effects model enables the true underlying effect to vary among individual studies. I2 values >25%, >50%, and >75% were considered to represent low, moderate, and high heterogeneity across the studies, respectively [11]. The pooled estimates between the BEV and SEV were compared using the mixed-effects model. In a further subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes between the Evolut R (Medtronic) and Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) valves. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 with a two-tailed test. Data were analyzed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3.3; Biostat, Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Literature search

The literature screened, excluded, reviewed, and included for analysis is illustrated in . Of the 398 articles yielded by computer search, 293 were excluded after titles and abstracts were screened. Full texts of 105 articles were reviewed to evaluate eligibility; of them, 5 were excluded because they were meta-analysis or review articles, 12 because their case numbers were <10, 9 because they included duplicated cohorts, and 52 because they did not report outcomes of patients who underwent VIV with BEV or SEV. Hence, 27 studies were included for the final quantitative meta-analysis [7, 8, 12–36]. All 27 studies were observational. Five of the studies reported outcomes of both BEV and SEV, while the other 22 studies enrolled only 1 of the 2 types of THV. Basic information of the 27 studies is shown in . Three studies derived from Valve-In-Valve International Database were included because each of them has data that was not reported in the other articles. For items that were reported by more than 1 of the studies, only those reported by the latest publication were included in our analysis. Quality assessment was performed using the NOS, with scores of the 27 studies ranging 5–9 points (.

3.2. Baseline and procedural characteristics

shows the pooled baseline and procedural characteristics of all patients in the 27 included studies. A total of 2,269 and 1,671 patients in the BEV and SEV groups were included. Mean age (78.0 ± 1.6 years in BEV vs. 75.6 ± 10.0 years in SEV), STS score (9.0 ± 2.5 in BEV vs. 9.2 ± 2.2 in SEV), left ventricular ejection fraction (50.0 ± 2.7% in BEV vs. 51.1 ± 3.0% in SEV), and other baseline echocardiographic parameters appeared to be similar between the 2 groups. The proportion of small degenerated surgical bioprostheses (≤21mm) appeared slightly lower in BEV (25.6%) than in SEV (30.7%) groups; however, the proportion of small THVs (≤23 mm) used was much higher in the BEV group (67.5%) than in the SEV group (26.9%). Transfemoral access was more frequently used in the SEV group (95%) than in the BEV group (61.3%).

3.3. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes

The event rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke at 30 days did not differ significantly between the BEV and SEV groups (). However, BEV was associated with significantly lower rates of major vascular complications (4.7% vs. 8.7%; P = 0.012), PPM implantation (3.8% vs. 12%; P < 0.001), and second valve requirement (2.9% vs. 6.2%; P = 0.004). One-year all-cause mortality and stroke rates were similar between the 2 groups ().

Forest plot comparing 30-day (A) and 1-year (B) clinical outcomes between BEV and SEV. BEV = balloon-expandable valve; SEV = self-expanding valve.

Regarding echocardiographic outcomes, SEV was associated with better hemodynamic performance than BEV, with significantly larger postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) at 30 days (1.53 cm2 vs. 1.23 cm2; P < 0.001) and 1 year (1.55 cm2 vs. 1.22 cm2; P < 0.001; ) and lower maximal and mean pressure gradients at 1 year (respectively, 23.0 mm Hg vs. 33.3 mm Hg, P = 0.001; and 13 mm Hg vs. 18.4 mm Hg, P = 0.002; ).

Forest plot comparing echocardiographic outcomes between BEV and SEV.

Thirty-day continuous outcomes (A), 30-day binary outcomes (B), and 1-year continuous outcomes (C) of BEV and SEV were compared.

3.4. Subgroup analysis for newer devices

We also compared the outcomes with the Sapien 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) and Evolut R (Medtronic) valves. These are the newest generation of the 2 types of THVs with published data available for analyses. Although no statistical significance was found, Evolut R seemed to be associated with a lower mean pressure gradient than Sapien 3 ().

Subgroup analysis comparing 30-day outcomes of Sapien 3 and Evolut R valves for 30-day continuous outcomes (A) and 30-day binary outcomes (B).

4. Discussion

4.1. Major findings

With nearly 4000 patients included, the present meta-analysis is the largest sample used for comparing BEV and SEV outcomes in patients with failed aortic valve bioprostheses thus far. Our major findings were as follows: (1) all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death did not differ significantly between the 2 groups; (2) BEV was associated with lower rates of new PPM implantation and major vascular complications; and (3) SEV was associated with larger postprocedural EOA than BEV, both at 30 days and at 1 year.

4.2. New PPM implantation

SEV use is an independent risk factor for PPM implantation in the overall TAVR population [37-39]. However, previous aortic valve procedures, including surgical AVR, seemed to be protective against post-TAVR PPM implantation [37, 39], possibly because the previously implanted bioprosthesis restricted the expansion of the THV. In the present meta-analysis, the pooled PPM implantation rate after SEV implantation was 10.7%, which is nearly 3-fold that in the BEV group (3.6%; P < 0.001). In other words, even under the potential protection of the old bioprosthesis, SEV is still associated with significantly higher risk of postprocedural PPM implantation. This finding is consistent with previous studies focusing on aortic VIV procedure [8, 9].

4.3. EOA

A major concern of the aortic VIV procedure is the relatively small postprocedural aortic valve area and high transvalvular pressure gradient, mainly resulting from restricted expansion of the THVs by the old valves. Several publications, including studies using an in vitro model [40, 41], large cohort studies [8, 9], and propensity-matched analysis [7], reported that SEV was associated with larger postprocedural aortic valve area and lower transvalvular gradient than BEV after aortic VIV procedures. The current meta-analysis further supported these findings in the largest sample size to date.

In the SEV we analyzed, the functioning part is positioned above the aortic annulus (i.e., the “supra-annular design,” which is thought to lessen the detrimental impact on postprocedural EOA by the old valve). The theory was supported by a study using in vitro model in which researchers found that when the CoreValve was positioned deeper than normal, the leaflets were more constrained, and EOA decreased; and when the SAPIEN was placed more supra-annularly, the leaflets expanded more completely, and postprocedural EOA became larger [41].

One may argue that the higher percentage of small THVs (≤23mm) used in the BEV group alone can explain the smaller postprocedural EOA in BEV. However, the proportions of small degenerated surgical bioprostheses (≤21mm) were similar between the 2 groups (), so why were small THVs more often used in the BEV group? We believe that the supra-annular design of Medtronic SEV allows a relatively larger size, while the intra-annular design of Edward BEV results in marked leaflet distortion if the size is too large [41]. According to the ViV Aortic app, for 19 or 21mm degenerated bioprostheses, a 23mm Medtronic THV, or a 20mm Edward THV is suggested. A study using the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry also found that elevated postprocedural pressure gradient were more common after BEV-VIV implantation than after SEV-VIV; for small surgical valves (internal diameter < 20mm) and intermediate-sized valves (internal diameter ≥20mm and <23mm) [8].

Insufficient EOA and elevated transvalvular pressure gradient not only diminish patients’ physical activity and quality of life but also predict early structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves [42]. In addition, incomplete THV expansion itself leads to localized high stress within the leaflets, which may accelerate valve degeneration [43].

4.4. SEV versus BEV

According to the present meta-analysis, SEV was associated with significantly better postprocedural EOA, which can reduce the risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch and improve quality of life, particularly in patients with larger body size or whose old bioprosthesis is small. Lower transvalvular gradient and better THV expansion may also lead to superior durability of the THV, which is important in patients with life expectancy of 20 years or longer. Nevertheless, higher EOA and lower gradient of SEV did not translate in to lower mortality. Moreover, SEV was associated with higher rates of postprocedural PPM implantation, which is detrimental to late outcome [37, 44].

Therefore, CoreValve may be beneficial in patients whose previous surgical valve is small and those at high risk of patient–prosthesis mismatch. However, Edwards valves may be preferred to Medtronic valves for patients with adequate surgical valve size, particularly those who are prone to encounter postprocedural PPM implantation or PVL, including patients who are older [37] and those who have prior conduction disturbances [38] or a prolonged PR interval [45]. For every transcatheter aortic VIV candidate, particularly younger patients, the valve selection decision should be made carefully after thorough consideration of device characteristics and patient condition and preference, as well as detailed explanation and discussion.

4.5. Study limitations

The study has several limitations. First, this meta-analysis was based on published articles; therefore, data quality and availability are limited. Second, owing to a lack of randomized controlled trials in this area, all studies included were observational, so our results can only be interpreted as “associations,” rather than as “causations.” However, the absence of randomized studies warrants the present meta-analysis to help in optimizing device selection. Third, THV devices continue advancing rapidly, so the outcomes of the present study may differ from those of the newest device.

5. Conclusion

The present systematic review and meta-analysis found that for patients who underwent transcatheter aortic VIV, SEV was associated with significantly larger postprocedural EOA but higher rates of PPM implantation and PVL of moderate or higher degree. These findings provide valuable information in guiding proper management for patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses.

Detailed search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Prisma 2009 checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality assessment of included studies.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

31 Mar 2020

PONE-D-20-05542

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-Analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed that the search of your systematic review was last performed in October 2018. Please ensure that the search is up to date and that the systematic review/meta-analysis includes any new studies published since then.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting review and meta-analysis of VIV-treatment. However, there are some points to discuss:

1. Comparison of EOA between SEV and BEV:

It should be better explained why the EOA of SEV is bigger than BEV. The used BEV-Size was smaller than the SEV-Sizes (THV size ≤ 23mm 65,7% vs 31,7%), this alone can explain the difference. How was the gradient-/EOA- difference in treated small surgical bioprosthesis (<21mm), are there data available?

2. There was a recent publication about measuring error of measured echo gradients in intra annular and supra annular valves (Abbas AE and Pibarot P, CCI 2019). Are there data about invasive measured gradients after VIV available.

3. For a recommendation which valve should be used in which situation, the coronary access possibility after VIV should be discussed, as there are differences between BEV and SEV.

Reviewer #2: it is a very important subject that the authors have performed a metanalysis on given the sparse RCT data comparing these 2 valves. Some questions that need to be answered:

1. Why is there such a large difference between the % of baseline >=moderate MR between the 2 groups (25.5% vs 68.3%)

2. Could the higher number of stented valves in the BEV group explain the higher PVL after the procedures?

3. Given that transfemoral access is the most common modality why were there only 67.8% in the BEV group? Especially given that alternate access is associated with higher periprocedural complication rates.

4. Higher EOA and Lower gradients have been shown in prior studies with SEV, although they did not translate into lower mortality with SEV compared to BEV. Can the authors elaborate on that in their discussion?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 May 2020

The following is a point-by-point response to reviewers comments.

_______________________________________________________________

2. We noticed that the search of your systematic review was last performed in October 2018. Please ensure that the search is up to date and that the systematic review/meta-analysis includes any new studies published since then

Response: We have updated the search to April 2020.

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting review and meta-analysis of VIV-treatment. However, there are some points to discuss:

1. Comparison of EOA between SEV and BEV:

It should be better explained why the EOA of SEV is bigger than BEV. The used BEV-Size was smaller than the SEV-Sizes (THV size ≤ 23mm 65,7% vs 31,7%), this alone can explain the difference. How was the gradient-/EOA- difference in treated small surgical bioprosthesis (<21mm), are there data available?

Response: Thanks for the great question. Regarding gradient-/EOA- difference in treated small surgical bioprostheses, a study using the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry found that elevated postprocedural pressure gradient (mean ≥ 20mmHg) were more common with BEVs in comparison with SEVs; for small surgical valves (internal diameter [ID] < 20mm), 41.2% vs 23.4% (P = .04) and for intermediate-sized valves (≥20 and < 23), 35.8% vs 19.4% (P = .01), respectively [1](eFigure 2C). Moreover, 11.8% of Edwards SAPIEN VIV procedures performed inside small bioprosthesis had very high postprocedural gradients (mean ≥ 40mmHg), while no cases of CoreValve VIV procedures resulted in very high gradients (P = 0.005, eFigure 2D).

We believe that the supra-annular design of Medtronic SEV allows a relatively larger size, while an intra-annular design of Edwards BEV results in marked leaflet distortion if the size is too large. This can explain why the ViV Aortic app suggests 20mm Edwards THVs inside19 or 21mm degenerated bioprosthesis, but 23mm Medtronic THVs inside same-sized bioprostheses.

In conclusion, the supra-annular design of Medtronic CoreValve allows better expansion of the leaflets, and allows a relatively larger sized THV to be inserted inside a small bioprosthesis, hence results in better EOA/gradient.

We have added the above explanation and citation in the revised manuscript.

2. There was a recent publication about measuring error of measured echo gradients in intra annular and supra annular valves (Abbas AE and Pibarot P, CCI 2019). Are there data about invasive measured gradients after VIV available.

Response: Abbas et. al. demonstrated the catheterization/echocardiography discordance after native TAVR and after Valve-in-Valve TAVR[2]. The echocardiography mean gradient is significantly higher than catheterization gradient after both procedures.

In all the studies we reviewed, only 1 reported postprocedural catheterization gradients[3]. The postprocedural mean echocardiographic gradient and mean invasive gradient were 22.8 and 13.6 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001).

3. For a recommendation which valve should be used in which situation, the coronary access possibility after VIV should be discussed, as there are differences between BEV and SEV.

Response: Yes, the coronary access possibility after VIV is a very important concern. Allali et. al. reported their experience of coronary intervention after TAVR[4]. However, the aim of the current meta-analysis is to collect evidences and analyze. Since we did not find sufficient data regarding coronary-related outcomes after ViV to perform meta-analysis, we did not include this point in our manuscript. Nevertheless, if you consider the point suitable for our article, we would like to add it in our manuscript according to your suggestion.

_________________________________________________________________

Reviewer #2: it is a very important subject that the authors have performed a metanalysis on given the sparse RCT data comparing these 2 valves. Some questions that need to be answered:

1. Why is there such a large difference between the % of baseline >=moderate MR between the 2 groups (25.5% vs 68.3%)

Response: In the original analysis, very few study reported the percentage of baseline ≥moderate AR. A single study of high or low % made a large difference in the results. After collecting more data, the % of baseline ≥moderate AR was 43.4% and 54.0 in the BEV and SEV groups, respectively. However, it should be noted that only a small portion of studies reported baseline ≥moderate AR, so the result does not well represent the whole population.

2. Could the higher number of stented valves in the BEV group explain the higher PVL after the procedures?

Response: In studies comparing outcomes following VIV inside stentless versus stented bioprostheses, stentless bioprostheses appeared to be related to higher PVL than stented bioprostheses[5, 6]. Hence, the higher percentage of stentless valves in the SEV group in our study could contribute to the higher rates of postprocedural PVL.

However, in the revised manuscript, after updating research with more recent data included in the meta-analysis, the difference of postprocedural PVL between BEV and SEV groups was no longer significant.

3. Given that transfemoral access is the most common modality why were there only 67.8% in the BEV group? Especially given that alternate access is associated with higher periprocedural complication rates.

Response: The proportion of transfemoral (TF) access reported by the two largest registry regarding Edwards VIV, VIVID Registry and PARTNER 2 VIV Registry, were 66.7% and 75.4%, respectively[7, 8]. In VIVID Registry, the TF ratio of Sapien XT was only 58.5%. Although nowadays approximately 5% of TAVR candidates require a non-femoral access, in the earlier era, 10~20% of patients require non-femoral access because previous-generation devices had larger profile. Transapical access, which could only be performed using BEV, was the first-developed non-femoral access, and had been the most commonly used non-femoral access for quite a few years. This may explain the lower percentage of TF access in BEV group, especially in earlier era. After updating the search to April, 2020, the TF ratio of BEV group slightly increased to 68.5%

4. Higher EOA and Lower gradients have been shown in prior studies with SEV, although they did not translate into lower mortality with SEV compared to BEV. Can the authors elaborate on that in their discussion?

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have discussed EOA and gradients in sections 4.3 and 4.4 of discussion in the original manuscript. We also added a sentence in the first paragraph of section 4.4 to emphasize that higher EOA and lower gradient of SEV did not translate into lower mortality. If there is any further suggestion from the reviewer, we will be glad to revise our manuscript accordingly.

References

1. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, Pasic M, Waksman R, Kodali S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 2014;312(2):162-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.7246.

2. Abbas AE, Mando R, Hanzel G, Gallagher M, Safian R, Hanson I, et al. Invasive Versus Echocardiographic Evaluation of Transvalvular Gradients Immediately Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(7):e007973. Epub 2019/07/06. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.007973. PubMed PMID: 31272227.

3. Scholtz S, Piper C, Horstkotte D, Gummert J, Ensminger SM, Borgermann J, et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve/Evolut R((c)) for degenerated small versus bigger bioprostheses. J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31(3):384-90. Epub 2018/03/01. doi: 10.1111/joic.12498. PubMed PMID: 29490430.

4. Allali A, El-Mawardy M, Schwarz B, Sato T, Geist V, Toelg R, et al. Incidence, feasibility and outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a self-expanding prosthesis. Results from a single center experience. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2016;17(6):391-8. Epub 2016/07/12. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2016.05.010. PubMed PMID: 27396607.

5. Duncan A, Moat N, Simonato M, de Weger A, Kempfert J, Eggebrecht H, et al. Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Degenerative Stentless Versus Stented Bioprostheses. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(13):1256-63. Epub 2019/06/17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.036. PubMed PMID: 31202944.

6. Choi CH, Cheng V, Malaver D, Kon N, Kincaid EH, Gandhi SK, et al. A comparison of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed stentless versus stented surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(6):1106-15. Epub 2018/12/28. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28039. PubMed PMID: 30588736; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6590419.

7. Seiffert M, Treede H, Schofer J, Linke A, Wöhrle J, Baumbach H, et al. Matched comparison of next- and early-generation balloonexpandable transcatheter heart valve implantations in failed surgical aortic bioprostheses. EuroIntervention. 2018;14(4):e397-e404. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00546.

8. Webb JG, Mack MJ, White JM, Dvir D, Blanke P, Herrmann HC, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Within Degenerated Aortic Surgical Bioprostheses: PARTNER 2 Valve-in-Valve Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(18):2253-62. Epub 2017/05/06. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.057. PubMed PMID: 28473128.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 20200512.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 May 2020

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-20-05542R1

Dear Dr. Chen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

22 May 2020

PONE-D-20-05542R1

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Chen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Study data.

First author	Year	Valve types	Study type	Locations/country	No. of centers	study period	Patient number
Woitek [34]	2020	BEV, SEV	Single center	Germany	1	2006–2017	146
Ribeiro [36]	2018	BEV, SEV	Multi-center	Global	135	2007–2014	1324
Ochiai [7]	2018	BEV, SEV	Single center	California, USA	1	2012–2017	74
Dvir [8]	2014	BEV, SEV	Multi-center	Global	55	2007–2013	459
Ihlberg [22]	2013	BEV, SEV	Multi-center	Nordic	11	2008–2012	45
Stankowski [29]	2020	SEV	Single center	Germany	1	2003–2018	68
Pascual [33]	2019	SEV	Single center	Spain	1	2012–2017	45
Schwerg [13]	2018	SEV	Single center	Germany	1	2013–2017	26
Scholtz [14]	2018	SEV	Single center	Germany	1	2009–2016	37
Sang [31]	2018	SEV	Single center	Michigan, USA	1	2014–1016	22
Deeb [17]	2017	SEV	Multi-center	USA	NA	2013–2015	227
Chhatriwalla [18]	2017	SEV	Single center	Michigan, USA	9	NA	12
Duncan [20]	2015	SEV	Single center	UK	1	2009–2014	22
Ong [23]	2012	SEV	Multi-center	Germany	3	NA	18
Linke [24]	2012	SEV	Single center	Germany	1	NA	27
Bedogni [27]	2011	SEV	Multi-center	Italy	8	NA	25
Murdoch [30]	2020	BEV	Multi-center	Global	46	2012–2015	339
Stankowski [32]	2019	BEV	Single center	Germany	1	2010–2018	27
Seiffert [12]	2018	BEV	Multi-center	Global	NA	NA	514
Webb [15]	2017	BEV	Multi-center	Worldwide	34	2012–2014	365
Nielsen-Kudsk [16]	2017	BEV	Single center	Denmark	1	2015–2017	10
Ye [19]	2015	BEV	Single center	Canada	1	2007–2013	42
Bapat [21]	2014	BEV	Single center	UK	1	2010–2014	10
Seiffert [35]	2012	BEV	Single center	Germany	1	2008–2011	11
Bapat [25]	2012	BEV	Single center	UK	1	2009–2011	23
Pasic [26]	2011	BEV	Single center	Germany	1	NA	14
Kempfert [28]	2010	BEV	Single center	Germany	1	2007–2009	11

Basic information of studies included in the meta-analysis.

BEV, balloon-expandable valve; SEV, self-expanding valve

Table 2

Baseline and procedural characteristics of patients (number of included studies = 27).

	BEV (Edwards)		SEV (Medtronic)
Variable	Available data, n	Weighted % or mean ± SD	Available data, n	Weighted % or mean ± SD
Age (year)	1087	78.0 ± 1.6	788	75.6 ± 10.0
Male (%)	1097	63.3%	751	55.3%
Log EuroSCORE	730	21.7 ± 9.9	586	26.2 ± 3.4
EuroSCORE II	53	19.6 ± 5.7	188	11.3 ± 2.9
STS score	1087	9.0 ± 2.5	678	9.2 ± 2.2
CAD (%)	491	65.2%	431	61.7%
Prior stroke (%)	1065	13.7%	666	11.7%
Prior Afib (%)	392	46.2%	467	42.0%
Prior PPM (%)	943	17.2%	377	22.5%
PAD (%)	1050	23.7%	674	22.7%
CKD (%)	1009	37.4%	674	34.3%
AR ≥moderate (%)	648	43.4%	509	54.0%
Bioprosthesis age (year)	732	10.5 ± 1.6	657	9.9 ± 1.3
Stented valve (%)	1078	84.2%	867	75.1%
Stentless valve (%)	809	13.6%	867	19.6%
Bioprosthesis size (%)	1097		746
≤21 mm		25.6%		30.7%
21–24.9 mm		40.4%		37.9%
≥25 mm		31.4%		28.9%
Unknown		2.3%		3.2%
Mode of failure (%)
AS	1126	45.8%	632	53.2%
AR	1126	28.0%	620	27.3%
Mix	1116	26.6%	583	21.8%
LVEF (%)	829	50.0 ± 2.7	527	51.1 ± 3.0
AV area (cm2)	699	0.90 ± 0.08	671	0.95 ± 0.09
AVA index (cm2/m2)	900	0.53 ± 0.06	213	0.55
Max PG (mmHg)	341	62.6 ± 8.5	423	61.0 ± 9.2
Mean PG (mmHg)	1022	34.6 ± 3.8	754	36.0 ± 4.4
Fluoroscopic time (min)	436	18.3 ± 3.4	92	19.6 ± 9.8
THV size ≤23 mm (%)	1299	67.5%	490	26.9%
TF access (%)	1076	68.5%	561	95.0%

Abbreviations: Afib, atrial fibrillation; AR, aortic regurgitation; AS, aortic stenosis; AV, aortic valve; AVA, aortic valve area; CAD, coronary artery disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PAD, peripheral artery disease; PG, pressure gradient; PPM, permanent pacemaker; PVL, paravalvular leak; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgery; TF, transfemoral; THV, transcatheter heart valve.