Network meta-analysis of new-generation valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation
To comprehensively compare and rank new-generation valves (NGVs) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of all eligible comparative studies. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through September 2018. We included all studies comparing 4 NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3) and an early generation valve (CoreValve) as the reference transcatheter heart valve (THV) each other and reporting at least one of postprocedural incidence of all-cause death, ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation (AR), and new permanent pacemaker implantation (PMI). To compare different THVs, a random-effects restricted-maximum-likelihood NMA based on a frequentist framework for indirect and mixed comparisons was used. Using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each THV was estimated and the hierarchy of competing THVs was obtained. We identified 29 eligible studies enrolling a total of 17,817 patients. In accordance with the estimated SUCRA probability, SAPIEN 3 was the best effective for a reduction in death (80.6%) and the second best for decreased ≥ moderate AR (74.4%) and PMI (74.1%) compared with the other THVs. Lotus was ranked the best for a reduction in ≥ moderate AR (94.5%;), whereas the worst for decreased PMI (1.2%) and the second worst for a reduction in mortality (38.6%). ACURATE was the best for decreased PMI (99.2%) and the second best for a reduction in mortality (77.9%). As a whole, SAPIEN 3 may be the best effective NGV among the 4 examined NGVs (ACURATE, Evolut R, Lotus, and SAPIEN 3).
KeywordsNetwork meta-analysis New-generation transcatheter heart valve Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors declare any potential conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
The present study is a meta-analysis of published articles, and neither a human nor animal study that should be approved by the appropriate ethics committee and performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
The present study is a meta-analysis of published articles, and accordingly, there are no persons who gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.
- 2.Akodad M, Lattuca B, Agullo A, Macia JC, Gandet T, Marin G, Iemmi A, Vernhet H, Schmutz L, Nagot N, Albat B, Cayla G, Leclercq F (2018) Prognostic impact of calcium score after transcatheter aortic valve implantation performed with new generation prosthesis. Am J Cardiol 121:1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Asch FM, Vannan MA, Singh S, Khandheria B, Little SH, Allocco DJ, Meredith IT, Feldman TE, Reardon MJ, Weissman NJ (2018) Hemodynamic and echocardiographic comparison of the lotus and corevalve transcatheter aortic valves in patients with high and extreme surgical risk: an analysis from the reprise iii randomized controlled trial. Circulation 137:2557–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Eitan A, Witt J, Stripling J, Haselbach T, Rieß FC, Schofer J (2018) Performance of the Evolut-R 34 mm versus Sapien-3 29 mm in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with larger annuli: Early outcome results of Evolut-R 34 mm as compared with Sapien-3 29 mm in patients with Annuli ≥26 mm. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 5:5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Enríquez-Rodríguez E, Amat-Santos IJ, Jiménez-Quevedo P, Martín-Morquecho I, Tirado-Conte G, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Gómez de Diego JJ, Arnold R, Aldazábal A, Rojas P, de Agustín A, Del Trigo M, Gutiérrez H, San Román JA, Macaya C, Nombela-Franco L (2018) Comparison of the hemodynamic performance of the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 versus self-expandable evolut R transcatheter valve: a case-matched study. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 71:735–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Giannini C, De Carlo M, Tamburino C, Ettori F, Latib AM, Bedogni F, Bruschi G, Presbitero P, Poli A, Fabbiocchi F, Violini R, Trani C, Giudice P, Barbanti M, Adamo M, Colombo P, Benincasa S, Agnifili M, Petronio AS (2017) Transcathether aortic valve implantation with the new repositionable self-expandable Evolut R versus CoreValve system: a case-matched comparison. Int J Cardiol 243:126–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Gonska B, Seeger J, Baarts J, Rodewald C, Scharnbeck D, Rottbauer W, Wöhrle J (2017) The balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve is superior to the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral aortic valve implantation. J Cardiol 69:877–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Husser O, Kim WK, Pellegrini C, Holzamer A, Walther T, Mayr PN, Joner M, Kasel AM, Trenkwalder T, Michel J, Rheude T, Kastrati A, Schunkert H, Burgdorf C, Hilker M, Möllmann H, Hengstenberg C (2017) Multicenter comparison of novel self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:2078–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Jatene T, Castro-Filho A, Meneguz-Moreno RA, Siqueira DA, Abizaid AAC, Ramos AIO, Arrais M, Le Bihan DCS, Barretto RBM, Moreira AC, Sousa AGMR, Eduardo Sousa J (2017) Prospective comparison between three TAVR devices: ACURATE neo vs. CoreValve vs. SAPIEN XT. A single heart team experience in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 90:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kalogeras K, Kabir T, Mittal T, Mirsadraee S, Skondras E, Rahman Haley S, Zuhair M, Vavuranakis M, Tousoulis D, Dalby M, Panoulas V (2018) Real-world comparison of the new 34 mm self-expandable transcatheter aortic prosthesis Evolut R to its 31 mm core valve predecessor. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 5:5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Mauri V, Kim WK, Abumayyaleh M, Walther T, Moellmann H, Schaefer U, Conradi L, Hengstenberg C, Hilker M, Wahlers T, Baldus S, Rudolph V, Madershahian N, Rudolph TK (2017) Short-term outcome and hemodynamic performance of next-generation self-expanding versus balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves in patients with small aortic annulus: a multicenter propensity-matched comparison. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 10:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Nai Fovino L, Badawy MRA, Fraccaro C, D'Onofrio A, Purita PAM, Frigo AC, Tellaroli P, Mauro A, Tusa M, Napodano M, Gerosa G, Iliceto S, Bedogni F, AbdelRheim AER, Tarantini G (2018) Transfemoral aortic valve implantation with new-generation devices: the repositionable Lotus vs. the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 valve. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown) 19:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Noble S, Stortecky S, Heg D, Tueller D, Jeger R, Toggweiler S, Ferrari E, Nietlispach F, Taramasso M, Maisano F, Grünenfelder J, Jüni P, Huber C, Carrel T, Windecker S, Wenaweser P, Roffi M (2017) Comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes with Evolut R versus Medtronic CoreValve: a Swiss TAVI registry analysis. EuroIntervention 12:e2170–e2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Pilgrim T, Stortecky S, Nietlispach F, Heg D, Tueller D, Toggweiler S, Ferrari E, Noble S, Maisano F, Jeger R, Roffi M, Grünenfelder J, Huber C, Wenaweser P, Windecker S (2016) Repositionable versus balloon-expandable devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis. J Am Heart Assoc 5:e004088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Rodés-Cabau J, Urena M, Nombela-Franco L, Amat-Santos I, Kleiman N, Munoz-Garcia A, Atienza F, Serra V, Deyell MW, Veiga-Fernandez G, Masson JB, Canadas-Godoy V, Himbert D, Castrodeza J, Elizaga J, Francisco Pascual J, Webb JG, de la Torre JM, Asmarats L, Pelletier-Beaumont E, Philippon F (2018) Arrhythmic burden as determined by ambulatory continuous cardiac monitoring in patients with new-onset persistent left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The MARE study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11:1495–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rodríguez-Olivares R, van Gils L, El Faquir N, Rahhab Z, Di Martino LF, van Weenen S, de Vries J, Galema TW, Geleijnse ML, Budde RP, Boersma E, de Jaegere PP, Van Mieghem NM (2016) Importance of the left ventricular outflow tract in the need for pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Int J Cardiol 216:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Rogers T, Steinvil A, Buchanan K, Alraies MC, Koifman E, Gai J, Torguson R, Okubagzi P, Ben-Dor I, Pichard A, Satler L, Waksman R (2017) Contemporary transcatheter aortic valve replacement with third-generation balloon-expandable versus self-expanding devices. J Interv Cardiol 30:356–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Schofer N, Deuschl F, Schön G, Seiffert M, Linder M, Schaefer A, Schirmer J, Lubos E, Reichenspurner H, Blankenberg S, Conradi L, Schäfer U (2018) Comparative analysis of balloon-versus mechanically-expandable transcatheter heart valves considering landing zone calcification. J Cardiol 71:540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Sorajja P, Kodali S, Reardon MJ, Szeto WY, Chetcuti SJ, Hermiller J Jr, Chenoweth S, Adams DH, Popma JJ (2017) Outcomes for the commercial use of self-expanding prostheses in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a report from the STS/ACC TVT registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 10:2090–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Subban V, Murdoch D, Savage ML, Crowhurst J, Saireddy R, Poon KK, Incani A, Bett N, Burstow DJ, Scalia GM, Clarke A, Raffel OC, Aroney CN, Walters DL (2016) Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high surgical risk and inoperable patients with aortic stenosis: a single Australian Centre experience. Intern Med J 46:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.van Gils L, Tchetche D, Lhermusier T, Abawi M, Dumonteil N, Rodriguez Olivares R, Molina-Martin de Nicolas J, Stella PR, Carrié D, De Jaegere PP, Van Mieghem NM (2017) Transcatheter heart valve selection and permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with pre-existent right bundle branch block. J Am Heart Assoc 6:e005028PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (eds) (2011) Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. https://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 1 Nov 2018