One-Year Results of the Portico Transcatheter Aortic Heart Valve Using the Next-Generation FlexNav Delivery System

Overview

Journal J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2024 Aug 12

PMID 39129811

Authors

Gregory P Fontana

Francesco Bedogni

Mark Groh

David Smith

Bassem M Chehab

H Edward Garrett Jr

Gerald Yong

Stephen Worthley

Ganesh Manoharan

Ron Waksman

Ravi K Ramana

Federico M Asch

Tarun Chakravarty

Raj R Makkar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The FlexNav delivery system (DS) features a hydrophilic coating, stability layer, and integrated sheath to facilitate valve deployment in vessel diameters ≥5.0 mm.

Methods: Data were pooled from 2 concurrent prospective, multicenter, premarket studies (PORTICO IDE [n = 147] and FlexNav EU CE Mark [n = 46]) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the FlexNav DS to deliver the Portico valve in the Global FlexNav study. The primary end point was Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 major vascular complication rate at 30 days. These outcomes were compared with those of the commercially available valve arm from the PORTICO IDE study.

Results: The Global FlexNav study enrolled 193 high- or extreme-risk subjects for sugery. The mean age was 84.8 years, and 59.6% were women, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 5.2%. At 1 year, the rate of all-cause mortality was 5.2%, disabling stroke 2.1%, and mild or less paravalvular leak 99.4%. The mean aortic gradient was maintained at 7.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg through 1 year. At 1 year, 96.8% of subjects were classified as New York Heart Association class I or II. A pacemaker was implanted in 15.4% of subjects at 30 days and 18.4% at 1 year. The results of the Portico valve in the Global FlexNav study are comparable with the results from the commercially available valve arm in the PORTICO IDE study.

Conclusion: The FlexNav DS was shown to be safe for the delivery of the Portico valve, which demonstrated sustained treatment benefits at 1 year with low rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, improved heart failure symptoms, and excellent valve performance.

Citing Articles

Real-Life Performance and Clinical Outcomes of Portico Transcatheter Aortic Valve with FlexNav Delivery System: One-Year Data from a Single-Center Experience.

Yildirim A, Genc O, Pacaci E, Sen O, Kurt I J Clin Med. 2023; 12(16).

PMID: 37629415 PMC: 10455755. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12165373.

References

Popma J, Adams D, Reardon M, Yakubov S, Kleiman N, Heimansohn D . Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(19):1972-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.556. View

Leon M, Smith C, Mack M, Miller D, Moses J, Svensson L . Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(17):1597-607. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008232. View

Mack M, Leon M, Thourani V, Makkar R, Kodali S, Russo M . Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(18):1695-1705. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052. View

Kappetein A, Head S, Genereux P, Piazza N, Van Mieghem N, Blackstone E . Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 42(5):S45-60. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs533. View

Fontana G, Bedogni F, Groh M, Smith D, Chehab B, Garrett Jr H . Safety Profile of an Intra-Annular Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve and Next-Generation Low-Profile Delivery System. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13(21):2467-2478. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.06.041. View

Mollmann H, Linke A, Holzhey D, Walther T, Manoharan G, Schafer U . Implantation and 30-Day Follow-Up on All 4 Valve Sizes Within the Portico Transcatheter Aortic Bioprosthetic Family. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(15):1538-1547. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.05.021. View

Reardon M, Van Mieghem N, Popma J, Kleiman N, Sondergaard L, Mumtaz M . Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(14):1321-1331. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700456. View

Popma J, Deeb G, Yakubov S, Mumtaz M, Gada H, OHair D . Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(18):1706-1715. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885. View

Leon M, Smith C . Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(7):700-1. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1606814. View

10.

Tzikas A, Amrane H, Bedogni F, Brambilla N, Kefer J, Manoharan G . Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Portico System: 10 Things to Remember. J Interv Cardiol. 2016; 29(5):523-529. DOI: 10.1111/joic.12322. View

11.

Austin P . An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399-424. PMC: 3144483. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786. View

12.

Makkar R, Cheng W, Waksman R, Satler L, Chakravarty T, Groh M . Self-expanding intra-annular versus commercially available transcatheter heart valves in high and extreme risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (PORTICO IDE): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2020; 396(10252):669-683. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31358-1. View

13.

Adams D, Popma J, Reardon M . Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(10):967-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1408396. View

14.

Smith C, Leon M, Mack M, Miller D, Moses J, Svensson L . Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(23):2187-98. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510. View