The 10-year horizon: Survival and structural valve degeneration in first-generation transcatheter aortic valves.

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an established treatment for high- or intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. As more low-risk patients are being treated, transcatheter heart valve durability is gaining importance. Data on structural valve deterioration beyond 8 years after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is limited.

AIM

To evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with a follow-up of ≥10 years, focusing on survival and structural valve deterioration, according to the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions/European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery definitions.

METHODS

Only patients with a follow-up of ≥ 10 years were included in this study (n=510). Using serial echocardiographic data, the cumulative incidences of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure were analysed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used for predictor assessment.

RESULTS

Mean age was 79.6±6.7 years, with a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 19.8±12.7%. Immediate procedural mortality was 2.9%, and 30-day mortality was 7.8%. Kaplan-Meier-estimated survival at 10 years was 10.3±1.5%. At 10 years, the cumulative incidences of severe and moderate structural valve deterioration were 4.3% and 13%, respectively, for the total population. The cumulative incidence of bioprosthetic valve failure at 10 years was 9.0%. There was a significant difference in the rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure depending on valve type: structural valve deterioration, SAPIEN 8.9% vs CoreValve 2.2% at 10 years (P=0.001); bioprosthetic valve failure, SAPIEN 13.9% vs CoreValve 6.7% at 10 years (P=0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure of early transcatheter heart valves was low at 10 years. The identified differences between valve types must be validated using current-generation devices in younger patients.