Cannata Stefano, Sultan Ibrahim, Van Mieghem Nicolas, Giordano Arturo, De Backer Ole, Byrne Johnathan, Tchetche Didier, Buccheri Sergio, Nombela-Franco Luis, Teles Rui Campante, Barbanti Marco, Barbato Emanuele, Amat Santos Ignacio, Blackman Daniel J, Maisano Francesco, Lorusso Roberto, La Spina Ketty, Millin Antonella, Kliner Dustin E, van den Dorpel Mark, Acerbi Elena, Lulic Davorka, Divekar Kaivalya, Cesario Vincenzo, Chavez Solsol Jorge Francisco, Brito Joao, Costa Giuliano, Casenghi Matteo, Fernandez Cordon Clara, Sherwen Amanda, Buzzatti Nicola, Pasta Salvatore, Turrisi Marco, Minacori Michele, Manca Paolo, Nuzzi Vincenzo, Tamburino Corrado, Bedogni Francesco, Gandolfo Caterina, Latib Azeem
Unit of Interventional Cardiology, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, IRCCS-ISMETT (Mediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Advanced Specialized Therapies), Palermo, Italy; Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2025 Jun 23;18(12):1557-1568. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2025.03.015. Epub 2025 May 10.
No comparative data exist with the self-expanding Navitor (NAV) and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 Ultra (ULTRA) transcatheter heart valves (THVs).
This study sought to investigate the 1-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the intra-annular NAV and the ULTRA THVs.
The NAVULTRA (Navitor and SAPIEN 3 Ultra) registry included consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 16 centers with NAV or ULTRA between November 2018 and April 2024. Propensity score matching was used for adjustment. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year.
The overall study cohort included 3,878 patients treated with NAV (n = 1,746) or ULTRA (n = 2,176). The propensity score-matched population resulted in 1,363 pairs. At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause was 9.7% with NAV and 9.9% with ULTRA (adjusted P = 0.585). Similarly, there were no significant differences in primary composite outcome (13.6% in the NAV group and 12.6% in the ULTRA group; adjusted P = 0.218). The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (20.6% vs 10.6%; adjusted P < 0.01) and heart failure rehospitalization (4.6% vs 2.8%; adjusted P < 0.05) was higher in NAV group. At 1 year, the use of NAV was associated with higher rates of mild paravalvular leak (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.33; adjusted P < 0.05) but lower mean transprosthetic gradients compared with ULTRA (mean change:-3.90, 95% CI: -4.47 to -3.34; adjusted P < 0.01).
Both intra-annular THVs were associated with similar 1-year clinical outcomes; however, differences were observed in secondary clinical endpoints and valve hemodynamic performance.
目前尚无关于自膨胀式Navitor(NAV)和球囊扩张式SAPIEN 3 Ultra(ULTRA)经导管心脏瓣膜(THV)的对比数据。
本研究旨在调查使用环内NAV和ULTRA经导管心脏瓣膜进行经导管主动脉瓣置换术的1年结局。
NAVULTRA(Navitor和SAPIEN 3 Ultra)注册研究纳入了2018年11月至2024年4月期间在16个中心连续接受经股动脉经导管主动脉瓣置换术的患者,这些患者使用的是NAV或ULTRA。采用倾向评分匹配进行调整。主要关注的结局是全因死亡以及1年时全因死亡、致残性卒中与因心力衰竭住院的复合结局。
整个研究队列包括3878例接受NAV(n = 1746)或ULTRA(n = 2176)治疗的患者。倾向评分匹配后的人群产生了1363对。1年时,NAV组的全因死亡率为9.7%,ULTRA组为9.9%(校正P = 0.585)。同样,主要复合结局也无显著差异(NAV组为13.6%,ULTRA组为12.6%;校正P = 0.218)。NAV组新永久性起搏器植入率(20.6%对10.6%;校正P < 0.01)和心力衰竭再住院率(4.6%对2.8%;校正P < 0.05)更高。1年时,与ULTRA相比,NAV的轻度瓣周漏发生率更高(比值比:1.53;95%置信区间:1.01至2.33;校正P < 0.05),但平均跨瓣压差更低(平均变化:-3.90,95%置信区间:-4.47至-3.34;校正P < 0.01)。
两种环内THV的1年临床结局相似;然而,在次要临床终点和瓣膜血流动力学性能方面存在差异。