Should We Worry about TAVR Durability?Should We Worry about TAVR Durability?

New findings from a two-center, single-arm study show a significant rate of degeneration in implanted transcatheter aortic valves (TAVR) and an estimated 50% degeneration rate within eight years. Is there reason for concern?

Marie Thibault

May 19, 2016

3 Min Read
Should We Worry about TAVR Durability?

As many as half of valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVR/TAVI) may show degeneration within eight years, according to new data presented earlier this week at EuroPCR 2016 in Paris. The findings have added a new element to the long debate over the relatively new technology's durability versus surgical aortic valves. Industry, clinicians, and patients anticipate a future where younger, less-severe aortic stenosis patients are eligible for TAVR, so durability is a key topic.

The study, the first to examine TAVR long-term durability, was presented by lead author Danny Dvir, MD, of St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. There were 378 patients  who underwent repeated echocardiographic examinations for up to 10 years after TAVR implantation between April 2002-May 2011 at two centers in Vancouver, Canada and Rouen, France. There were 100 patients who lived for at least five years after the TAVR procedure. In the study, 35 cases of valve degeneration were found, of which two-thirds were linked to intravalvular regurgitation, the other third associated with valvular stenosis, and a few cases with both, according to a press release summarizing the data.

Between five and seven years after the TAVR procedure, there were a significant number of degenerating valves, according to Dvir. A Kaplan-Meier estimate pointed to an approximately 50% degeneration rate within eight years.

The patients were implanted with the Sapien, Sapien XT, and Cribier-Edwards valves, all older-generation valves from Edwards Lifesciences. The company's newer offering, the Sapien 3, received FDA approval for use in high-risk, symptomatic aortic stenosis patients last year.

"Physicians performing TAVI in younger patients and in those expected to survive long after the procedure should be aware that the long-term rate of THV degeneration is not negligible, at least for first-generation THV devices," Dvir said in the press release. "Physicians must be mindful of the limitations of the THV they implant and whether patients can be safely treated by another transcatheter approach, such as valve-in-valve, if a THV fails years later," he added.

An Edwards Lifesciences spokesperson said in a statement, "These data presented at EuroPCR are new information and inconsistent with our robust datasets and experiences around the world. We look forward to seeing a peer-reviewed publication to better understand and evaluate these outcomes from the cohort of patients at two centers."

Research analysts keeping a close eye on TAVR developments did not express alarm over the findings. Larry Biegelsen, senior analyst at Wells Fargo, pointed out a few limitations of the study in a May 17 research note: 

"We caution investors from reading too much into the data for the following reasons: (1) it's a single arm study with no control arm; (2) the devices in the study are already outdated and there's not way to know if the third generation Sapien 3 or another device such as [Medtronic's] CoreValve Evolut R would have the same outcomes; and (3) there was no different between Sapien and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) devices up to 5 years in the PARTNER 1A trial in terms of mortality and valve degeneration . . . It's important to note that newer devices such as Sapien 3 and MDT's CoreValve have actually shown a mortality benefit over SAVR devices in intermediate and high risk patients at one and two years, respectively. In addition, we think most patients will opt for the less invasive approach (TAVR) over the more invasive surgical approach (SAVR) even if long-term outcomes are less durable."

In a May 19 research note, Joanne Wuensch, analyst at BMO Capital Markets wrote, "We believe [the degeneration data] can be compared with last year's leaflet thrombosis discussion--a lot of noise that did not change the revenue trajectory. In conclusion, while it clearly needs to be watched, this is not a new concern. This is not the study to hang our hat on given the limitations of the data . . ."

[Image courtesy of EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES]

About the Author

Marie Thibault

Marie Thibault is the managing editor for Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry and Qmed. Reach her at [email protected] and on Twitter @MedTechMarie.

Sign up for the QMED & MD+DI Daily newsletter.

You May Also Like