Shaker, Farhad

ABSTRACTBackgroundComparisons of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon‐expandable (BEV) versus self‐expanding (SEV) valves are limited.HypothesisThis study aimed to compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short‐term (30 days), midterm (1 year), and long‐term (> 1 year) endpoints.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until July 2024 for randomized controlled trials. Random‐effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 10 studies comprising 4325 patients (2295 BEV, 2030 SEV) were included. In short‐term, cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.87) and all‐cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35–0.81) were lower in the BEV group. Risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) was lower among BEV patients in short‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49) and long‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.1–0.79). A limited number of studies showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis on BEV in midterm and long‐term. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV at both short‐term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37–0.87), and midterm (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.94). The SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient at all endpoints.ConclusionsBEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes in short‐term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL, which remains elevated for SEV. SEVs had better hemodynamic results and lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis.

Background: The research on the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) are limited. Hypothesis: This study aims to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short-term (30 days), mid-term (1 year), and long-term (>1 year) endpoints. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 25, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 11 RCTs comprising 4,325 patients (2,295 BEV, 2,030 SEV) were included. At short-term, the risk of cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.87) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81) were lower in the BEV group. However, no differences were noted between the two treatment modalities in longer follow-ups despite the lower risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) among BEV patients. The risk of stroke was comparable between two groups across all three follow-up endpoints, albeit a limited number of studies suggesting the BEV group showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis in mid-term and long-term assessments. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV arm in short-term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.87) and mid-term (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94). Yet, this difference was not observed in long-term follow-ups. Conversely, the SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient from short-term (MD: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.26 and MD: 3.71, 95% CI: 2.64-4.78, respectively) to long-term (MD: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17-0.32 and MD: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.19-4.27, respectively) periods. Conclusions: BEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes at short-term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL. Conversely, SEV is linked to better hemodynamic outcomes and a lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis across all follow-up durations.