Heart Center Leipzig at the University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Heart Center, Segeberger Kliniken, Bad Segeberg, Germany.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 May 11;13(9):1071-1082. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.12.026. Epub 2020 Apr 15.
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.
The CHOICE trial was designed to compare device performance of a balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valve (THV) versus a self-expanding (SE) THV.
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.
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 cm vs. 1.9 ± 0.5 cm; 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).
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).
本研究旨在评估 CHOICE(经导管心脏瓣膜在高危重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者中的随机比较:美敦力 CoreValve 与爱德华兹 SAPIEN XT)试验 5 年的临床和超声心动图结果数据。
CHOICE 试验旨在比较球囊扩张(BE)经导管心脏瓣膜(THV)与自扩张(SE)THV 的器械性能。
CHOICE 试验是一项由研究者发起的试验,将 241 名高危、有症状的重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者随机分为经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣置换术,使用 BE 或 SE THV。主要终点是器械成功率。患者随访 5 年,评估临床结局,并进行超声心动图评估瓣膜功能和 THV 耐久性。
5 年后,BE 组和 SE 组在全因死亡率(53.4% vs. 47.6%;p=0.38)、心血管原因死亡率(31.6% vs. 21.5%;p=0.12)、所有中风(17.5% vs. 16.5%;p=0.73)和因心力衰竭再次住院(28.9% vs. 22.5%;p=0.75)方面无统计学显著差异。SE 患者的人工瓣膜面积较大(1.6±0.5cm vs. 1.9±0.5cm;p=0.02),平均跨瓣压差较低(12.2±8.7mmHg vs. 6.9±2.7mmHg;p=0.001)。5 年后,两组的瓣周漏发生率无差异。7 例 BE 患者(7.3%)和 1 例 SE 患者(0.8%;p=0.06)发生临床瓣叶血栓形成,6 例 BE 患者(6.6%)和无 SE 患者(0%;p=0.018)发生中度或重度结构性瓣叶恶化。两组的生物瓣失效发生率均较低且无统计学显著差异(4.1% vs. 3.4%;p=0.63)。
CHOICE 试验 5 年随访结果显示,经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣置换术早期使用 BE 和 SE 瓣膜的临床结局无统计学显著差异,但统计学效能有限。SE 瓣膜的前向血流动力学明显更好。中度或重度结构性瓣叶恶化并不常见,但 BE 瓣膜更为常见。(高危严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者的经导管心脏瓣膜比较:CHOICE 试验[CHOICE];NCT01645202)。