Posts Tagged ‘Edward Lifescience’

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Inoperable Severe Aortic Stenosis

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Inoperable Severe Aortic Stenosis

Raj R. Makkar, M.D., Gregory P. Fontana, M.D., Hasan Jilaihawi, M.D., Samir Kapadia, M.D., Augusto D. Pichard, M.D., Pamela S. Douglas, M.D., Vinod H. Thourani, M.D., Vasilis C. Babaliaros, M.D., John G. Webb, M.D., Howard C. Herrmann, M.D., Joseph E. Bavaria, M.D., Susheel Kodali, M.D., David L. Brown, M.D., Bruce Bowers, M.D., Todd M. Dewey, M.D., Lars G. Svensson, M.D., Ph.D., Murat Tuzcu, M.D., Jeffrey W. Moses, M.D., Matthew R. Williams, M.D., Robert J. Siegel, M.D., Jodi J. Akin, M.S., William N. Anderson, Ph.D., Stuart Pocock, Ph.D., Craig R. Smith, M.D., and Martin B. Leon, M.D. for the PARTNER Trial Investigators

N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1696-1704 May 3, 2012


Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is the recommended therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are not suitable candidates for surgery. The outcomes beyond 1 year in such patients are not known.


We randomly assigned patients to transfemoral TAVR or to standard therapy (which often included balloon aortic valvuloplasty). Data on 2-year outcomes were analyzed.


A total of 358 patients underwent randomization at 21 centers. The rates of death at 2 years were 43.3% in the TAVR group and 68.0% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001), and the corresponding rates of cardiac death were 31.0% and 62.4% (P<0.001). The survival advantage associated with TAVR that was seen at 1 year remained significant among patients who survived beyond the first year (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.92; P=0.02 with the use of the log-rank test). The rate of stroke was higher after TAVR than with standard therapy (13.8% vs. 5.5%, P=0.01), owing, in the first 30 days, to the occurrence of more ischemic events in the TAVR group (6.7% vs. 1.7%, P=0.02) and, beyond 30 days, to the occurrence of more hemorrhagic strokes in the TAVR group (2.2% vs. 0.6%, P=0.16). At 2 years, the rate of rehospitalization was 35.0% in the TAVR group and 72.5% in the standard-therapy group (P<0.001). TAVR, as compared with standard therapy, was also associated with improved functional status (P<0.001). The data suggest that the mortality benefit after TAVR may be limited to patients who do not have extensive coexisting conditions. Echocardiographic analysis showed a sustained increase in aortic-valve area and a decrease in aortic-valve gradient, with no worsening of paravalvular aortic regurgitation.


Among appropriately selected patients with severe aortic stenosis who were not suitable candidates for surgery, TAVR reduced the rates of death and hospitalization, with a decrease in symptoms and an improvement in valve hemodynamics that were sustained at 2 years of follow-up. The presence of extensive coexisting conditions may attenuate the survival benefit of TAVR. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00530894.)

Supported by Edwards Lifesciences.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

This article (10.1056/NEJMoa1202277) was published on March 26, 2012, and updated on August 30, 2012, at NEJM.org.

Source Information

From Cedars–Sinai Heart Institute, Los Angeles (R.R.M., H.J., R.J.S.); Lenox Hill Heart and Vascular Institute (G.P.F.) and Columbia University Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospital (S. Kodali, J.W.M., M.R.W., C.R.S., M.B.L.) — both in New York; Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (S. Kapadia, L.G.S., M.T.); Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC (A.D.P.); Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (P.S.D.); Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta (V.H.T., V.C.B.), University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, Canada (J.G.W.); Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (H.C.H., J.E.B.); Baylor Healthcare System (D.L.B., B.B.) and Medical City Dallas (T.M.D.) — both in Dallas; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA (J.J.A., W.N.A.); and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London (S.P.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Leon at Columbia University Medical Center, Center for Interventional Vascular Therapy, 161 Fort Washington Ave., 6th Fl., New York, NY 10032, or at mleon@crf.org.

The investigators, institutions, and research organizations participating in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNERS) trial are listed in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.


Other posts on this topic on this Scientific Web Site include:

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): risk for stroke and suitability for surgery


Read Full Post »

Updated Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): risk for stroke and suitability for surgery

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD,RN


UPDATED on 5/27/2014

Survival After TAVI: Longest Follow-up Data Yet Yield Some Surprises

May 23, 2014

PARIS, FRANCE — Some of the longest follow-up for the first transcatheter aortic-valve implantations (TAVI) ever performed confirm earlier observations that the biggest threat to survival in TAVI-implanted patients remains their comorbidities and not problems related to their valves, regardless of valve type. More surprising, some of the procedural issues that preoccupy interventionalists and surgeons today did not emerge as important in this longer-term follow-up.

Presenting three- and five-year data from the UK TAVI registry in a press conference here at EuroPCR 2014 , Dr Neil Moat (Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK) pointed to what he called “biphasic” survival curves. In the first few months after valve implantation, there is a steep drop in survival, he noted. Thereafter, the curve becomes significantly less steep, mirroring the survival curves typically seen in older patients who have undergone surgical valve replacement.

“In the first six months, you have quite a dramatic attrition of patients, then mortality falls to about 6% of patients per year,” he said. “What this is telling us is that patients undergoing TAVI are not dying of TAVI-related factors.”

The UK TAVI registry contains prospectively collected data from 100% of all consecutive transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) patients treated since January 1, 2007. The current analysis includes 870 early patients whose mortality status was ascertained in July 2013.

In all, 62% of TAVR-treated patients were alive at three years, while just under half—48.4%—were still alive at five years.

Dr Neil Moat [Source: EuroPCR]

In multivariable analyses, the strongest baseline predictor of mortality at three years was

  • creatinine >200 µg/mmol, followed by
  • presence of atrial fibrillation,
  • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or a
  • high EuroSCORE (>18.5).

Of note, device- or procedure-related characteristics that typically get a lot of attention at interventional meetings were not significant predictors of late survival. For example,

  • 12.7% of patients still alive at three years had had moderate/severe aortic regurgitation at the time of their procedure, compared with
  • 14.9% of patients who’d died, but the difference was not statistically significant. Likewise,
  • permanent pacemaker implantation had been performed in 16.2% of patients still alive at follow-up and in
  • 19.3% of patients who died, again a nonsignificant difference.

Not surprisingly,

  • more transfemorally treated patients were alive at three years than
  • patients treated via a nontransfemoral procedure (64.3% vs 55.7%, p=0.017).

Roughly the same number of patients received the

  • Edwards Sapien device in the early days of the TAVI registry (410) as received the
  • Medtronic CoreValve (452).

By three years,

  • 40.7% of Sapien-treated patients had died, compared with
  • 35.4% of CoreValve-treated patients (p=0.078).
“CoreValve had a trend toward better survival, but I wouldn’t want to overinterpret that,” Moat cautioned. These are preliminary data, he stressed, but added, “There is a trend there that needs looking at” when the registry has more patients, with more follow-up.

One of the theories put forward in other sessions at EuroPCR is that the higher pacemaker-implantation rate with CoreValve might, in fact, help bump up survival rates with this device.

“It’s an interesting hypothesis,” Moat said. “But I don’t think we have any data to support that hypothesis, either here or in any other study. I think if there were an effect of early pacemaker implantation it would be in this first [six-month] phase. Some people are concerned that the early attrition is sudden death because of late heart block occurring two, three, or four months after the procedure. So if you are having pacemakers implanted more frequently, you are being protected from that, but I think our data strongly suggest that pacemaker implant does not affect long-term survival.”

Moat disclosed being a consultant for Medtronic.


UPDATED on 2/9/2014

Transcatheter Technologies Completes Durability Testing of Its Prosthetic Aortic Heart Valve, Intrinsic to World’s First ‘Truly Repositionable’ TAVI Device, TRINITY

January 28, 2014 6:29 AM 

Business Wire

“This 3rd-generation TRINITY technology could be a game-changer for TAVI.” Prof. Dr. Christian Hengstenberg, MD, German Heart Center, Munich (Note: Prof. Dr. med Hengstenberg has no financial ties to Transcatheter Technologies.)

REGENSBURG, Germany–(BUSINESS WIRE)–January 28, 2014–

Transcatheter Technologies GmbH, an emerging medical device company that is developing a third-generation transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) system-TRINITY-announced today that an independent laboratory has completed ‘advanced wear testing’ (AWT) of the company’s TRINITY valve prosthesis, far exceeding minimum testing standards. Indeed, AWT of the TRINITY heart valve has already completed 600 million cycles, or an estimated 15 years of durability testing.

Transcatheter Technologies has previously announced the successful 30-day follow-up results of a pilot study of its TRINITY TAVI system that is designed to be the world’s first ‘truly repositionable’ and, therefore, best TAVI system.

“Unlike second-generation TAVI systems, the Trinity aortic valve is designed to be positioned precisely or repositioned, even after full implantation, in a safe and simple manner,” said principal investigator Prof. Dr. Christian Hengstenberg, a cardiologist at the German Heart Center, Munich, Germany, with no financial interest or arrangement or affiliation with Transcatheter Technologies. “In our study, Trinity’s novel sealing cuff continues to provide outstanding follow-up results without PVL (paravalvular leak), a frequent complication of TAVI. Equally important, the TRINITY aortic valve is designed to reduce the risk of atrio-ventricular (AV) block significantly through supra-annular positioning of the TRINITY valve.”

“We are extremely pleased that our TRINITY valve has already demonstrated three times the minimum standard for advanced wear testing of a tissue heart valve,” said Wolfgang Goetz, M.D., Ph.D., CEO, a cardiac surgeon by training. We also are extremely pleased with the continuing excellent results of our third-generation TRINITY System in the follow-up of our first patient.

“The big issue with the second-generation TAVI systems is that they cannot be truly repositioned once fully implanted. TRINITY, however, is designed to solve this critically important issue and thereby potentially reduce the undesirable side consequences of PVL,” added Dr. Goetz. “With TRINITY, once our valve is completely expanded and anchored above the annulus, a cardiologist can fully evaluate the valve’s function to determine whether it needs to be repositioned, retrieved, or kept in the same position. This feature and its supra-annular anchoring are absolutely unique to TRINITY, which is why we have positioned TRINITY as a Third-Generation TAVI System.”

CAUTION: TRINITY is not approved for use in the United States

Ronald Trahan Associates Inc.
Ronald Trahan, APR, +1-508-359-4005, x108


Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): risk for stroke and suitability for surgery

For additional discussion go to 

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): Risky and Costly


BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4710 (Published 31 July 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4710

Evidence for TAVI Questioned

By Chris Kaiser, Cardiology Editor, MedPage Today

Published: July 31, 2012

The tens of thousands of transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) performed worldwide may not have solid evidence behind them, European researchers suggested.

To begin with, a health technology assessment commissioned by the Belgian government suggested that only patients who are “deemed inoperable for technical reasons such as a series of previous operations or irradiation of the chest wall” be reimbursed for TAVI, according to Mattias Neyt, PhD, of the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre in Brussels, and colleagues.

That’s about 10% of patients currently being considered for the procedure, they wrote online in an analysis article in BMJ.

Why is there such a big disconnect between the growing number of patients undergoing TAVI and the findings of the Belgian technology assessment? Neyt and colleagues said there are several factors that have resulted in more enthusiasm than evidence for TAVI.

One of those factors is the process by which medical devices receive marketing approval in the E.U., which, they said, puts medical devices “on the same footing as domestic appliances such as toasters.”

As a consequence of what the authors referred to as “Europe’s lax licensing laws,” the two TAVI devices in common use today – Medtronic’s CoreValve and Edward Lifescience’s Sapien – were approved in 2007, “long before any substantial clinical trial evidence was available.”

Even the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) concluded that the evidence was “adequate from a clinical point of view” for the use of TAVI in those unsuitable for surgery, but when surgery is an option — even a high-risk one — the evidence for TAVI was inadequate.

However, the British analysis did not consider costs associated with the procedure, Neyt and colleagues pointed out.

In the U.S., the FDA approval process is more rigorous than that of the E.U., but Neyt and colleagues were “far from convinced” that the results from the PARTNER trials (Cohort A andCohort B) were adequate to justify approval of the Sapien valve.

Although the cost-effectiveness of TAVI for inoperable patients (cohort B) is “equivocal,” they wrote, the clinical evidence seems to suggest that TAVI can be justified. However, they pointed out some problems that they said were not considered within the overall evidence, such as a higher rate of comorbidities and a higher rate of previous MIs among the inoperable control patients.

In PARTNER cohort A, where TAVI was compared with high-risk surgical patients, the authors noted a concern for a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack among the TAVI patients.

Nevertheless, an FDA panel in June recommended expanding the indication for the Sapien valve to include high-risk surgical candidates. One of the panelists said that stroke is “just an accepted risk of the procedure.”

But Neyt and colleagues don’t accept that. They concluded that based on the evidence, as well as the concern for efficient use of limited resources, “it is difficult to see how healthcare payers can justify reimbursing TAVI for patients suitable for surgery, given that the risk of stroke is twice as high after TAVI.”

Another issue that could undermine the integrity of the evidence, Neyt and colleagues said, was the absence of full disclosure on the part of principal investigator Martin B. Leon, MD, from Columbia University.

According to the Belgian researchers, part of the deal involving the sale of Leon’s valve company to Edwards included future payments from Edwards “on the achievement of three milestones: successful treatment of 50 patients, regulatory approval in Europe, and limited approval in the U.S.”

These three milestones were not disclosed in the original paper published in the New England Journal of Medicinethey said.

Neyt and colleagues also complained that the FDA and Edwards Lifesciences are holding on to negative findings from an FDA-authorized follow-on study of 90 inoperable patients. Some of the data released at an FDA meeting in 2011 showed a higher 1-year mortality rate among those receiving TAVI (34.3% versus 21.6%), they said, but efforts to obtain any of those data have been rebuffed by both the FDA and Edwards.

They brought this concern to the editors of the NEJM, but the editors didn’t think the concern invalidated the overall PARTNER findings.

Tying all this together, Neyt and colleagues called for “a major improvement in transparency of information” that would “allow clinicians to practice evidence-based medicine, patients to make informed decisions, and health technology assessment agencies to make the right judgments.”

The authors reported they had no relationships to disclose.

Primary source: BMJ

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: