Comparing two-year outcomes of balloon-expandable Myval and self-expanding Evolut R in severe aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The new balloon-expandable (BE) Myval transcatheter heart valves (THV) has shown promising early results with low paravalvular leak (PVL) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) rates. Limited data are available regarding its long-term performance. We aimed to compare the 2-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) using the self-expanding (SE) Evolut R and the BE Myval THVs. METHODS: The EVAL study included 166 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis who underwent TAVR either with SE Evolut R (n = 108) or BE Myval (n = 58) THV. Primary objectives include comparison on clinical efficacy (freedom from all-cause mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular hospitalization), echocardiographic performance and PPI rates between the two THVs. RESULTS: At 2-year the BE Myval group showed higher clinical efficacy (86% vs. 66%,HR:2.62, 95%CI 2.2-5.1;p = 0.006), with fewer cardiac hospitalizations (3.4% vs. 13.9%,p = 0.03). No significant differences in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke rates were observed. The proportion of patients with ≥moderate PVL was significantly lower in the BE Myval compared to the SE Evolut R group (4%vs. 22%,p = 0.008). The mean transvalvular gradient was significantly higher in the SE group compared to the BE group (9.5 ± 4.3 vs. 6.9 ± 2.2 mmHg,p < 0.001), however there was no difference in the percentage of patients with a mean gradient ≥20 mmHg between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both THVs offer similar 2-year clinical outcomes. The BE Myval THV demonstrated advantages with higher clinical efficacy and lower PVL incidence. Longer follow-up and randomized trials are needed to validate these results and assess Myval's sustained performance and durability.

Patients younger than 70 undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Procedural outcomes and mid-term survival.

INTRODUCTION: Based on recent data, the indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is expanding to individuals at lower surgical risk, who are generally younger than subjects historically treated for severe aortic stenosis. Indeed, younger patients have traditionally been under-represented in current TAVI literature. The aim of the present study is to report about clinical features, procedural outcomes and mid-term outcomes of patients younger than 70 who underwent TAVI in a single high-volume center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients younger than 70 years of age who underwent TAVI for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis between 2007 and 2019 at a single, tertiary referral center have been included in this retrospective study. Procedural and mid-term outcomes were analyzed, comparing 1st generation with 2nd generation devices. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2019, 1740 TAVI procedures were performed in our center. Among these, one hundred twenty-nine (7.4%) patients were younger than 70 years at the time of the intervention and were included in the present analysis. Fifty-eight patients (45%) were implanted with a 1st generation prosthesis while seventy-one patients (55%) were implanted with a 2nd generation device. Reasons which lead to a transcatheter approach in this population were: previous CABG (27.9%); porcelain aorta (24%); severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (21.7%); prior chest radiation (19.4%); severe lung disease (8.5%); hemodynamic instability (7.0%); advanced liver disease (4.6%) and active cancer (3.9%). Overall device success rate was 89%, with no differences among 1st and 2nd generation devices. Threeyears all-cause mortality was 34%, with no difference among the two groups. Low incidence of aortic-valve re-intervention was observed at mid-term follow-up (late valve re-intervention = 2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI in young patient with appropriate indication for intervention is a safe procedure, associated with low rate of in hospital mortality and low rate of severe complications both with 1st and with 2nd generation devices. When considering long term durability, more data are needed; in our case series long-term follow up shows a good survival and also an extremely low rate of valve re-intervention.