Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Lessons from TAVR Randomized Trials and Registries E Murat Tuzcu, MD Professor of Medicine Cleveland Clinic Financial disclosures: None PARTNER Executive.

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Lessons from TAVR Randomized Trials and Registries E Murat Tuzcu, MD Professor of Medicine Cleveland Clinic Financial disclosures: None PARTNER Executive."— Presentation transcript:

1 Lessons from TAVR Randomized Trials and Registries E Murat Tuzcu, MD Professor of Medicine Cleveland Clinic Financial disclosures: None PARTNER Executive Committee member

2 Edwards Transcatheter Valve Evolution Untreated Equine Tissue Edwards SAPIEN™ August, 2007 Treated Bovine Tissue Andersen Pig implant, May ’89 Cribier-Edwards™ FIM, April 2002 Sapien XT™ January, 2010 TFX Treated Bovine /CC Untreated Equine Tissue

3 CoreValve Revalving Generation 1 25 Fr Generation 2 21 Fr Generation 3 18 Fr Dec 2006 No Support No Anesthesia 2005-2006 (June) CP By-Pass + TandemHeart Percutaneous Support 2004-2005 Surgical Fem-Fem CP By-Pass

4 30-day Mortality Study (%) REVIVE/REVIVAL a VANCOUVER b PARTNER EU c SOURCE d CANADIAN e FRENCH Reg f UK Reg g n1611145946334595172Age83.783.982.381.78183.283 Mortality (%) 11.27.98.16.310.48.48.9ES/STS34.3/13.130.3/-25.7/11.325.7/--/9.825.6/15.420 Transfemoral TAVI a. Kodali et al TCT 2008 b. Webb TCT 2008 c. Schachinger et al Euro PCR 2009 d. Thomas et al Euro PCR 2009 e. Rodes-Cabau et al. JACC 2010;55:In Press f. Eltchaninoff H. AHA 2009 g. LudmanEuroPCR 2010

5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 REVIVAL VANCOUVER CANADIAN UK Registry 024681012 Month SOURCE 1.0 75.8% 73.8% 81.1% 75.0% 79.5% One Year Survival Transfemoral TAVI

6 N = 699 N = 358 High Risk Inoperable PARTNER Study Design Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis ASSESSMENT: High-Risk AVR Candidate 3,105 Total Patients Screened ASSESSMENT: High-Risk AVR Candidate 3,105 Total Patients Screened Total = 1,057 patients 2 Parallel Trials: Individually Powered Standard Therapy Standard Therapy ASSESSMENT: Transfemoral Access Not In Study TF TAVR Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality Over Length of Trial (Superiority) Co-Primary Endpoint: Composite of All-Cause Mortality and Repeat Hospitalization (Superiority) Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality Over Length of Trial (Superiority) Co-Primary Endpoint: Composite of All-Cause Mortality and Repeat Hospitalization (Superiority) 1:1 Randomization VS Yes No N = 179

7 All Cause Mortality Numbers at Risk TAVI TAVI1791381226726 Standard Rx Standard Rx179121 83 834112 ∆ at 1 yr = 20.0% NNT = 5.0 pts Standard Rx TAVI All-cause mortality (%) Months 0 20 40 60 80 100 50.7% 30.7% HR [95% CI] = 0.54 [0.38, 0.78] P (log rank) < 0.0001

8 TAVI Standard RxTAVIStandard RxTAVIStandard RxTAVIStandard Rx DeadIIIIIIIV Percent NYHA Class Over Time All patients TreatmentVisit P = 0.68P < 0.0001

9 Aortic Valve Mean Gradient (Core Lab) (mmHg) * * * * Douglas et al ACC 2011

10 Clinical Outcomes at 30 Days and 1 Year Major Vascular Complications P<0.0001 TAVI (n=179) Standard Rx (n=179) per cent Major Stroke P = 0.06 P = 0.18

11 Published Cost Effectiveness Estimates

12 Clinical Implications Balloon-expandable TAVI should be the new standard of care for patients with aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery!

13 N = 179 N = 358 Inoperable Standard Therapy Standard Therapy ASSESSMENT: Transfemoral Access Not In Study TF TAVR Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality Over Length of Trial (Superiority) Co-Primary Endpoint: Composite of All-Cause Mortality and Repeat Hospitalization (Superiority) Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality Over Length of Trial (Superiority) Co-Primary Endpoint: Composite of All-Cause Mortality and Repeat Hospitalization (Superiority) 1:1 Randomization VS Yes No N = 179 TF TAVR AVR Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality at 1 yr (Non-inferiority) TA TAVR AVR VS N = 248N = 104N = 103N = 244 PARTNER Study Design Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis ASSESSMENT: High-Risk AVR Candidate 3,105 Total Patients Screened ASSESSMENT: High-Risk AVR Candidate 3,105 Total Patients Screened Total = 1,057 patients 2 Parallel Trials: Individually Powered N = 699 High Risk ASSESSMENT: Transfemoral Access Transapical (TA) Transfemoral (TF) 1:1 Randomization Yes No

14 1 Year (189) Dead = 46 Withdrawal = 1 1 Year (189) Dead = 46 Withdrawal = 1 1 Year (168) Dead = 47 Withdrawal = 8 1 Year (168) Dead = 47 Withdrawal = 8 Study Flow AVR (248) 30 Days (236) Dead = 8 Withdrawal = 0 30 Days (236) Dead = 8 Withdrawal = 0 Randomized = 699 patients TF = 492 TA = 207 Transfemoral n = 492 TAVR (244) 30 Days (223) Dead = 15 Withdrawal = 10 30 Days (223) Dead = 15 Withdrawal = 10 1 Year (73) Dead = 26 Withdrawal = 0 LTFU = 1 1 Year (73) Dead = 26 Withdrawal = 0 LTFU = 1 1 Year (68) Dead = 20 Withdrawal = 3 LTFU = 1 1 Year (68) Dead = 20 Withdrawal = 3 LTFU = 1 AVR (103) 30 Days (100) Dead = 4 Withdrawal = 0 30 Days (100) Dead = 4 Withdrawal = 0 Transapical n = 207 TAVR (104) 30 Days (92) Dead = 7 Withdrawal = 4 30 Days (92) Dead = 7 Withdrawal = 4

15 CharacteristicTAVR (N = 348)AVR (N = 351)p-value Age (yr)83.6 ± 6.884.5 ± 6.40.07 Male sex - %57.856.70.82 STS Score11.8 ± 3.311.7 ± 3.50.61 Logistic EuroSCORE29.3 ± 16.529.2 ± 15.60.93 NYHA II - % III or IV - %94.394.0 CAD - %74.976.90.59 Previous MI - %26.830.00.40 Prior CV Intervention - %72.171.60.93 Prior CABG - %42.644.20.70 Prior PCI - %34.032.50.68 Prior BAV - %13.410.20.24 29.327.40.60 Patient Characteristics (1) Cerebrovascular disease - % 5.7 6.0 0.79

16 Characteristic TAVR (N = 348) AVR (N = 351) p-value Peripheral vascular disease - %43.041.60.76 COPD Any 43.4 Oxygen dependent9.27.10.34 Creatinine> 2mg/dL - %11.17.00.06 Atrial fibrillation - %40.842.70.75 Permanent pacemaker - %20.021.90.58 Pulmonary hypertension - %42.436.40.15 Frailty - %15.617.60.58 Porcelain aorta - %0.61.10.69 Chest wall radiation - %0.9 1.00 Liver disease - %2.02.60.80 Patient Characteristics (2) 43.0 0.94

17 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 06121824 TAVR AVR Months 34829826014767 35125223613965 No. at Risk TAVR AVR 26.8 24.2 Primary Endpoint: All-Cause Mortality at 1 Year HR [95% CI] = 0.93 [0.71, 1.22] P (log rank) = 0.62

18 30 Days 1 Year Outcome TAVR (N = 348) AVR (N = 351) p-value TAVR (N = 348) AVR (N = 351) p-value Vascular complications All – no. (%) 59 (17.0) 13 (3.8) <0.01 62 (18.0) 16 (4.8) <0.01 Major – no. (%) 38 (11.0) 11 (3.2) <0.01 39 (11.3) 12 (3.5) <0.01 Major bleeding – no. (%) 32 (9.3) 67 (19.5) <0.01 49 (14.7) 85 (25.7) <0.01 Endocarditis – no. (%) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) 0.32 2 (0.6) 3 (1.0) 0.63 New AF – no. (%) 30 (8.6) 56 (16.0) < 0.01 42 (12.1) 60 (17.1) 0.07 New PM – no. (%) 13 (3.8) 12 (3.6) 0.89 19 (5.7) 16 (5.0) 0.68 Clinical Outcomes at 30 Days and 1 Year All Patients (N=699)

19 30 Days 1 Year Outcome TAVR (N = 348) AVR (N = 351) TAVR (N = 348) AVR (N = 351) All Stroke or TIA – no. (%) 19 (5.5) 8 (2.4) 0.04 27 (8.3) 13 (4.3) 0.04 TIA – no. (%)3 (0.9)1 (0.3)0.337 (2.3)4 (1.5)0.47 All Stroke – no. (%)16 (4.6)8 (2.4)0.1220 (6.0)10 (3.2)0.08 Major Stroke – no. (%) 13 (3.8) 7 (2.1) 0.20 17 (5.1) 8 (2.4) 0.07 Minor Stroke – no. (%)3 (0.9)1 (0.3)0.343 (0.9)2 (0.7)0.84 Death/maj stroke – no. (%) 24 (6.9) 28 (8.2) 0.52 92 (26.5) 93 (28.0) 0.68 Neurological Events at 30 Days and 1 Year All Patients (N=699) p-value

20 0 - No symptoms. 1 - No significant disability. Able to carry out all usual activities, despite some symptoms. 2 - Slight disability. Able to look after own affairs without assistance, but unable to carry out all previous activities. 3 - Moderate disability. Requires some help, but able to walk unassisted. 4 - Moderately severe disability. Unable to attend to own bodily needs without assistance, and unable to walk unassisted. 5 - Severe disability. Requires constant nursing care and attention, bedridden, incontinent. 6 - Dead. The Modified Rankin Scale Minor Major

21 All-Cause Mortality at 30 Days All Patients no. of patients ( %) TF Patients no. of patients ( %) TA Patients no. of patients ( %) TAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-value ITT12 (3.4)22 (6.5)0.078 (3.3)15 (6.2)0.134 (3.8)7 (7.0)0.32 AT18 (5.2)25 (8.0)0.159 (3.7)18 (8.2)0.0469 (8.7)7 (7.6)0.79 Mortality and Major Stroke at 30 Days Major Stroke at 30 Days All Patients no. of patients ( %) TF Patients no. of patients ( %) TA Patients no. of patients ( %) TAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-value ITT13 (3.8)7 (2.1)0.207 (2.9)4 (1.7)0.376 (5.8)3 (3.2)0.37 AT13 (3.8)7 (2.3)0.256(2.5)3 (1.4)0.377 (7.0)4 (4.4)0.45

22 All-Cause Mortality at 1 Year All Patients no. of patients ( %) TF Patients no. of patients ( %) TA Patients no. of patients ( %) TAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-value ITT84 (24.2)89 (26.8)0.4454 (22.2)62 (26.4)0.2930 (29.0)27 (27.9)0.85 AT81 (23.7)78 (25.2)0.6451 (21.3)55 (25.2)0.3330 (29.1)23 (25.3)0.55 Major Stroke at 1 Year All Patients no. of patients ( %) TF Patients no. of patients ( %) TA Patients no. of patients ( %) TAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-valueTAVRAVRp-value ITT17 (5.1)8 (2.4)0.079 (3.8)4(1.7)0.158 (8.3)4 (4.3)0.26 AT17 (5.2)8 (2.7)0.118 (3.5)3(1.4)0.159 (9.4)5(5.9)0.37 Mortality and Major Stroke at 1 year

23 TAVR Neuro Events in PARTNER B Number of Events 0 2 4 6 8 10 5strokes 0-3 day 8 strokes occurred when patients were in AF

24 Paravalvular Aortic Regurgitation P< 0.001 1 Year6 Months30 Days Patients, % NoneTraceMildModerate Severe

25 Implications TAVR is an acceptable alternative to AVR in selected high-risk operable patients. A multidisciplinary valve team benefits patients and recommended for all valve centers. Future RCT should focus on lower risk patients who are candidates for operation.

Download ppt "Lessons from TAVR Randomized Trials and Registries E Murat Tuzcu, MD Professor of Medicine Cleveland Clinic Financial disclosures: None PARTNER Executive."

Similar presentations

Types of AVR Examples of replacement aortic valves: a) shows an aortic homograft, b) and c) show a xenograft, d) shows a ball and cage valve, e) shows.

Types of AVR Examples of replacement aortic valves: a) shows an aortic homograft, b) and c) show a xenograft, d) shows a ball and cage valve, e) shows.
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Therapies

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Therapies
Jeffrey W. Moses, MD Columbia University Medical Center Cardiovascular Research Foundation New York City The State of TAVR -PARTNER: From Concept to Mortality.

Jeffrey W. Moses, MD Columbia University Medical Center Cardiovascular Research Foundation New York City The State of TAVR -PARTNER: From Concept to Mortality.
STS 2015 John V. Conte, MD Professor of Surgery Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine On Behalf of the CoreValve US Investigators Transcatheter Aortic.

STS 2015 John V. Conte, MD Professor of Surgery Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine On Behalf of the CoreValve US Investigators Transcatheter Aortic.
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein São Paulo São Paulo SBHCI 2010 Belo Horizonte, MG; July 23, 2010 Update on TAVI Studies: Edwards SAPIEN® Transcatheter.

Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein São Paulo São Paulo SBHCI 2010 Belo Horizonte, MG; July 23, 2010 Update on TAVI Studies: Edwards SAPIEN® Transcatheter.
Health-Related Quality of Life After Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Results From.

Health-Related Quality of Life After Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Results From.
Craig R. Smith, MD on behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic.

Craig R. Smith, MD on behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High Risk Patients with Severe Aortic.
Three-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of aortic stenosis patients implanted with a self-expending bioprosthesis Sabine Bleiziffer German.

Three-year clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of aortic stenosis patients implanted with a self-expending bioprosthesis Sabine Bleiziffer German.
ACC 2015 Michael J Reardon, MD, FACC On Behalf of the CoreValve US Investigators A Randomized Comparison of Self-expanding Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic.

ACC 2015 Michael J Reardon, MD, FACC On Behalf of the CoreValve US Investigators A Randomized Comparison of Self-expanding Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic.
Matthew R. Reynolds, M.D., M.Sc. On Behalf of the PARTNER Investigators Lifetime Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared.

Matthew R. Reynolds, M.D., M.Sc. On Behalf of the PARTNER Investigators Lifetime Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared.
Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Compared with Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High Risk.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Compared with Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High Risk.
Long-Term Outcomes Using a Self- Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Deemed Extreme Risk for Surgery: Two-Year Results From.

Long-Term Outcomes Using a Self- Expanding Bioprosthesis in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Deemed Extreme Risk for Surgery: Two-Year Results From.
INTERNATIONAL. CAUTION: For distribution only in markets where CoreValve® is approved. Not for distribution in U.S., Canada or Japan. Medtronic, Inc. 2011.

INTERNATIONAL. CAUTION: For distribution only in markets where CoreValve® is approved. Not for distribution in U.S., Canada or Japan. Medtronic, Inc
University Heart Center Hamburg

University Heart Center Hamburg
Dr Martyn Thomas Director of Cardiac Services Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust A Member of Kings Health Partners London.

Dr Martyn Thomas Director of Cardiac Services Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust A Member of Kings Health Partners London.
Craig R. Smith, MD on behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators

Craig R. Smith, MD on behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators
A shifting paradigm of care: Advances in transcatheter heart valve procedures Sandra Lauck MSN, RN, CCN(C) Clinical Nurse Specialist, Arrhythmia Management.

A shifting paradigm of care: Advances in transcatheter heart valve procedures Sandra Lauck MSN, RN, CCN(C) Clinical Nurse Specialist, Arrhythmia Management.
PARTNER Objective To compare surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk patients with severe.

PARTNER Objective To compare surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in high-risk patients with severe.
The Risk and Extent of Neurological Events Are Equivalent for High-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Thomas.

The Risk and Extent of Neurological Events Are Equivalent for High-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Thomas.
The PARTNER Stroke Substudy Writing Group* On behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators and Patients Transcatheter (TAVR) versus Surgical (AVR) Aortic.

The PARTNER Stroke Substudy Writing Group* On behalf of The PARTNER Trial Investigators and Patients Transcatheter (TAVR) versus Surgical (AVR) Aortic.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google