Repositionable percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the LOTUS valve: 30-day and 1-year outcomes in 250 highrisk surgical patients
Aims: The REPRISE IIE trial aimed to evaluate outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation of the fully repositionable and retrievable LOTUS valve with a unique seal designed to minimise paravalvular leak (PVL). Methods and results: This prospective, multicentre study enrolled 250 patients with severe aortic stenosis considered high-risk for surgery by a multidisciplinary Heart Team. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated events per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Mean age was 84 years; 77% were in NYHA Class III/IV. LOTUS valve implantation produced significant haemodynamic improvements at one year without valve embolisation, ectopic valve deployment, or additional valve implantation. Primary endpoints were met as the 30-day mortality rate in the extended cohort (4.4%, N=250), and mean valve gradient in the main cohort (11.5±5.2 mmHg, N=120) were below (p<0.001) their predefined performance objectives. At 30 days, disabling stroke was 2.8% and new pacemaker implantation was 28.9% in all patients and 32.0% in pacemaker-naïve patients. By one year, all-cause mortality was 11.6%, disabling stroke was 3.6%, 95% of patients alive were in NYHA Class I/II, and there was no core laboratory-adjudicated moderate/severe PVL. Conclusions: LOTUS valve implantation produced good valve haemodynamics, minimal PVL, sustained significant improvement in functional status, and good clinical outcomes one year post implant.
|Keywords||Aortic stenosis, Clinical trials, Femoral, Transcatheter aortic valve implantation|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-01024, hdl.handle.net/1765/108062|
Meredith, I, Dumonteil, N, Blackman, D.J. (Daniel J.), Tchetche, D, Walters, D.L. (Darren L.), Hildick-Smith, D, … Dawkins, K.D. (2017). Repositionable percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the LOTUS valve: 30-day and 1-year outcomes in 250 highrisk surgical patients. EuroIntervention, 13(7), 788–795. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-16-01024