Background: The choice of transcatheter heart valve (THV) platform, including self‐expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon‐ expandable valves (BEVs), may influence outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This relationship remains underexplored in high‐risk populations with chal- lenging vascular access. Aims: This study assessed the impact of SEVs and BEVs on clinical outcomes in PAD patients, considering hostile score severity. Methods: This sub‐analysis of the Hostile Registry included 419 TAVR patients (47% SEVs, 53% BEVs). Outcomes, including all‐cause mortality, stroke, vascular complications, and major bleeding were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models assessed associations, with interaction terms exploring the modifying effect of valve type by hostile score severity. Results: No significant differences emerged between SEVs and BEVs for 30‐day and 1‐year outcomes. However, in SEVs recipients, a high hostile score was associated with worse outcomes, including 1‐year all‐cause mortality (HR 2.81, p = 0.033), stroke (HR 18.26, p = 0.008), major bleeding (HR 2.49, p = 0.033), and MACCE (HR 4.34, p < 0.001). Interaction terms were not statistically significant, although a trend for MACCE (p = 0.0598) was noted. Conclusions: SEVs and BEVs demonstrated comparable outcomes overall, high hostile score were associated with worse outcomes in the SEV group. Nonetheless, there was a trend suggesting a difference between the two valves in this setting, and further studies are needed to confirm potential valve‐specific differences in high‐risk populations and to refine personalized valve selection.
Introduzione: La scelta della piattaforma di valvola cardiaca transcatetere (THV), incluse le valvole autoespandibili (SEV) e le valvole espandibili con pallone (BEV), può influenzare gli esiti nei pazienti con arteriopatia periferica (PAD) sottoposti a sostituzione valvolare aortica transcatetere transfemorale (TAVR). Questa relazione rimane poco esplorata nelle popolazioni ad alto rischio con accesso vascolare complesso. Obiettivo dello studio: Questo studio ha valutato l’impatto delle SEV e delle BEV sugli esiti clinici nei pazienti con PAD, considerando la severità dello score di “hostile”. Metodi: Questa sotto-analisi del registro Hostile ha incluso 419 pazienti sottoposti a TAVR (47% SEV, 53% BEV). Gli esiti, inclusi mortalità per tutte le cause, ictus, complicanze vascolari e sanguinamenti maggiori, sono stati valutati a 30 giorni e a 1 anno. Modelli di regressione logistica e modelli di rischio proporzionale di Cox hanno valutato le associazioni, con termini di interazione per esplorare l’effetto modificante del tipo di valvola in base alla severità dello score “hostile”. Risultati: Non sono emerse differenze significative tra SEV e BEV per gli esiti a 30 giorni e a 1 anno. Tuttavia, nei pazienti trattati con SEV, un alto score “hostile” è risultato associato a esiti peggiori, inclusa la mortalità per tutte le cause a 1 anno (HR 2.81, p = 0.033), ictus (HR 18.26, p = 0.008), sanguinamenti maggiori (HR 2.49, p = 0.033) e MACCE (HR 4.34, p < 0.001). I termini di interazione non sono risultati statisticamente significativi, sebbene sia stato osservato un trend per MACCE (p = 0.0598). Conclusioni: SEV e BEV hanno mostrato complessivamente esiti comparabili; un alto score “hostile” è stato associato a esiti peggiori nel gruppo SEV. Tuttavia, è stato osservato un trend che suggerisce una differenza tra le due valvole in questo contesto, e sono necessari ulteriori studi per confermare possibili differenze specifiche tra le valvole nelle popolazioni ad alto rischio e per affinare la selezione personalizzata della valvola.
Prosthetic Platform Performance in High-Risk Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement: Investigating the Interaction Between Valve Type and Vascular Access Hostility
BATTISTELLI, RICCARDO
2025/2026
Abstract
Background: The choice of transcatheter heart valve (THV) platform, including self‐expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon‐ expandable valves (BEVs), may influence outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This relationship remains underexplored in high‐risk populations with chal- lenging vascular access. Aims: This study assessed the impact of SEVs and BEVs on clinical outcomes in PAD patients, considering hostile score severity. Methods: This sub‐analysis of the Hostile Registry included 419 TAVR patients (47% SEVs, 53% BEVs). Outcomes, including all‐cause mortality, stroke, vascular complications, and major bleeding were evaluated at 30 days and 1 year. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models assessed associations, with interaction terms exploring the modifying effect of valve type by hostile score severity. Results: No significant differences emerged between SEVs and BEVs for 30‐day and 1‐year outcomes. However, in SEVs recipients, a high hostile score was associated with worse outcomes, including 1‐year all‐cause mortality (HR 2.81, p = 0.033), stroke (HR 18.26, p = 0.008), major bleeding (HR 2.49, p = 0.033), and MACCE (HR 4.34, p < 0.001). Interaction terms were not statistically significant, although a trend for MACCE (p = 0.0598) was noted. Conclusions: SEVs and BEVs demonstrated comparable outcomes overall, high hostile score were associated with worse outcomes in the SEV group. Nonetheless, there was a trend suggesting a difference between the two valves in this setting, and further studies are needed to confirm potential valve‐specific differences in high‐risk populations and to refine personalized valve selection.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Battistelli_Riccardo.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
2.38 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.38 MB | Adobe PDF |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/109420