Dataset Information

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic). Objective:To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years. Design, Setting, and Participants:A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, were randomized 2:1 to receive Lotus (607 [66.6%]) or CoreValve (305 [33.4%] at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia. The first 2-year visit occurred on October 17, 2016, and the last was conducted on April 12, 2018. Clinical and echocardiographic assessments are complete through 2 years and will continue annually through 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures:All-cause mortality and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Other clinical factors included overall stroke, disabling stroke, repeated procedures, rehospitalization, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation. Echocardiographic analyses included effective orifice area, mean gradient, and paravalvular leaks (PVLs). Results:Of 912 participants, the mean (SD) age was 82.8 (7.3) years, 465 (51%) were women, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 6.8% (4.0%). At 2 years, all-cause death was 21.3% with Lotus vs 22.5% with CoreValve (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26; P?=?.67) and all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 22.8% with Lotus and 27.0% with CoreValve (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07; P?=?.14). Overall stroke was 8.4% vs 11.4% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; P?=?.21); disabling stroke was more frequent with CoreValve vs Lotus (4.7% Lotus vs 8.6% CoreValve; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.93; P?=?.02). More Lotus patients received a new permanent pacemaker (41.7% vs 26.1%; HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.41-2.49; P?

SUBMITTER: Reardon MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439548 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Reardon Michael J MJ Feldman Ted E TE Meduri Christopher U CU Makkar Raj R RR O'Hair Daniel D Linke Axel A Kereiakes Dean J DJ Waksman Ron R Babliaros Vasilis V Stoler Robert C RC Mishkel Gregory J GJ Rizik David G DG Iyer Vijay S VS Gleason Thomas G TG Tchétché Didier D Rovin Joshua D JD Lhermusier Thibault T Carrié Didier D Hodson Robert W RW Allocco Dominic J DJ Meredith Ian T IT

JAMA cardiology 20190301 3

<h4>Importance</h4>To our knowledge, REPRISE III is the first large randomized comparison of 2 different transcatheter aortic valve replacement platforms: the mechanically expanded Lotus valve (Boston Scientific) and self-expanding CoreValve (Medtronic).<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate outcomes of Lotus vs CoreValve after 2 years.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A total of 912 patients with high/extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis enrolled between September 22, 2014, and D ...[more]

PMID: 30810703

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background As transcatheter aortic valve replacement expands to younger and/or lower risk patients, the long-term consequences of permanent pacemaker implantation are a concern. Pacemaker dependency and impact have not been methodically assessed in transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. We report the incidence and predictors of pacemaker implantation and pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Lotus valve. Methods and Results A total of 912 patients with high/extreme surgical risk and symptomatic aortic stenosis were randomized 2:1 (Lotus:CoreValve) in REPRISE III (The Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) trial. Systematic assessment of pacemaker dependency was pre-specified in the trial design. Pacemaker implantation within 30 days was more frequent with Lotus than CoreValve. By multivariable analysis, predictors of pacemaker implantation included baseline right bundle branch block and depth of implantation; diabetes mellitus was also a predictor with Lotus. No association between new pacemaker implantation and clinical outcomes was found. Pacemaker dependency was dynamic (30 days: 43%; 1 year: 50%) and not consistent for individual patients over time. Predictors of pacemaker dependency at 30 days included baseline right bundle branch block, female sex, and depth of implantation. No differences in mortality or stroke were found between patients who were pacemaker dependent or not at 30 days. Rehospitalization was higher in patients who were not pacemaker dependent versus patients without a pacemaker or those who were dependent. Conclusions Pacemaker implantation was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Most patients with a new pacemaker at 30 days were not dependent at 1 year. Mortality and stroke were similar between patients with or without pacemaker dependency and patients without a pacemaker. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier NCT02202434.

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, limitations such as suboptimal deployment, conduction disturbances, and paravalvular leak occur.ObjectiveTo evaluate if a mechanically expanded valve (MEV) is noninferior to an approved self-expanding valve (SEV) in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR.Design, setting, and participantsThe REPRISE III trial was conducted in 912 patients with high or extreme risk and severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015, with final follow-up on March 8, 2017.InterventionsParticipants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either an MEV (n = 607) or an SEV (n = 305).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety end point was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening or major bleeding, stage 2/3 acute kidney injury, and major vascular complications tested for noninferiority (margin, 10.5%). The primary effectiveness end point was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, and moderate or greater paravalvular leak tested for noninferiority (margin, 9.5%). If noninferiority criteria were met, the secondary end point of 1-year moderate or greater paravalvular leak was tested for superiority in the full analysis data set.ResultsAmong 912 randomized patients (mean age, 82.8 [SD, 7.3] years; 463 [51%] women; predicted risk of mortality, 6.8%), 874 (96%) were evaluable at 1 year. The primary safety composite end point at 30 days occurred in 20.3% of MEV patients and 17.2% of SEV patients (difference, 3.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to 8.3%; P = .003 for noninferiority). At 1 year, the primary effectiveness composite end point occurred in 15.4% with the MEV and 25.5% with the SEV (difference, -10.1%; Farrington-Manning 97.5% CI, -∞ to -4.4%; P<.001 for noninferiority). The 1-year rates of moderate or severe paravalvular leak were 0.9% for the MEV and 6.8% for the SEV (difference, -6.1%; 95% CI, -9.6% to -2.6%; P < .001). The superiority analysis for primary effectiveness was statistically significant (difference, -10.2%; 95% CI, -16.3% to -4.0%; P < .001). The MEV had higher rates of new pacemaker implants (35.5% vs 19.6%; P < .001) and valve thrombosis (1.5% vs 0%) but lower rates of repeat procedures (0.2% vs 2.0%), valve-in-valve deployments (0% vs 3.7%), and valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.7%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong high-risk patients with aortic stenosis, use of the MEV compared with the SEV did not result in inferior outcomes for the primary safety end point or the primary effectiveness end point. These findings suggest that the MEV may be a useful addition for TAVR in high-risk patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Project description:ImportanceLong-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms.ObjectiveTo describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial.Design, setting, and participantsThis prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021.InterventionLotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms.Main outcomes and measuresValve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up.ResultsA total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups.Conclusions and relevanceThe REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.MethodsWe performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.ResultsRelative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.ConclusionsIn a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.StandardsWith expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Dataset Information

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Two-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical vs Self-expanding Valves: The REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets