TAVR in Pure Aortic Regurgitation: New Devices, New Outcomes

Pure aortic regurgitation has historically been considered a contraindication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) due to the absence of calcification and subsequent device anchoring problems it poses.
TAVI en insuficiencia aórtica pura, nuevos dispositivos con nuevos resultados

Initial reports on first-generation self-expanding valves for the treatment of pure regurgitation were somewhat discouraging, but devices evolved, adding repositioning capacity, different external skirts (pericardial, PET, urethane, etc.) for improved cuff sealing, and unique anchoring mechanisms, such as the one included in the Direct Flow valve. These improvements suggested that it might be the time to make another attempt at treating pure aortic regurgitation.


Read also: Cardiac Damage: Should we start to assess it?”


This pure aortic regurgitation multicenter registry enrolled 331 patients who underwent TAVR. Among them, 119 (36%) received first-generation devices and 212 (64%) received new-generation devices.

 

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score tended to be lower in the new-generation device group (6.2 ± 6.7 vs. 7.6 ± 6.7; p = 0.08), a trend also observed in patients with stenosis. However, transfemoral access was more frequently used in the early-generation device group (87.4% vs. 60.8%; p < 0.001), which is definitely against what has been observed in patients with stenosis.

 

New-generation devices were associated with a higher device success rate (81.1% vs. 61.3%; p < 0.001) due to lower frequency of second valve implantation (12.7% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.007) and a lower rate of residual ≥ moderate regurgitation (4.2% vs. 18.8%; p <0.001).


Read also: iFR in Nonculprit Lesions: Measurement Timing May Change History”.


The mortality rate for patients with residual ≥ moderate regurgitation doubled that for patients with ≤ mild regurgitation (46.1% vs. 21.8%; p = 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation was a predictor for 1-year mortality, not for device type or generation used.

 

Conclusion

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new-generation devices in patients with pure regurgitation improved outcomes significantly when compared with first-generation devices.

 

Editorial

In pure aortic regurgitation, larger annulus size and the absence of calcium challenges prosthesis anchoring. All devices (old and new) were designed according to the anatomical characteristics of patients with stenosis, which is why neither guidelines nor manufacturers recommend them for the treatment of patients with pure regurgitation.

 

That notwithstanding, improvements in new devices are also useful for patients with pure regurgitation, a fact that forces the off-label indication for replacement in an increasingly larger high-risk population that demands solutions other than surgery.

 

Original title: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Pure Native Aortic Valve Regurgitation.

Reference: Sung-Han Yoon et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:2752-63.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Percutaneous Tricuspid Valve Replacement with Lux-Valve

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a condition associated with poor quality of life, frequent hospitalizations due to heart failure, and increased mortality, even under optimal...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...

ACC 2025 | TAVI in Low-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of EVOLUTE LOW RISK

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a valid alternative to surgery in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, one of its main limitations...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...