Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation by Valve Type in Women With Small Annuli
Authors: Tchétché Didier , Mehran Roxana , Blackman Daniel J. , Khalil Ramzi F. , Möllmann Helge , Abdel-Wahab Mohamed , Ben Ali Walid , Mahoney Paul D. , Ruge Hendrik , Bleiziffer Sabine , Lin Lang , Szerlip Molly , Grubb Kendra J. , Byku Isida , Guerrero Mayra , Gillam Linda D. , Petronio Anna Sonia , Attizzani Guilherme F. , Batchelor Wayne B. , Gada Hemal , Rogers Toby , Rovin Joshua D. , Whisenant Brian , Benton Stewart , Gardner Blake , Padang Ratnasari , Althouse Andrew D. , Herrmann Howard C. 
Published: October 2024

ImportanceHistorically, women with aortic stenosis have experienced worse outcomes and inadequate recognition compared to men, being both underdiagnosed and undertreated, while also facing underrepresentation in clinical trials.ObjectiveTo determine whether women with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have better clinical and hemodynamic outcomes with a self-expanding valve (SEV) or balloon-expandable valve (BEV).Design, Setting, ParticipantsThe Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut or SAPIEN Trial (SMART) was a large-scale randomized clinical trial focusing on patients with small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, randomized to receive SEVs or BEVs and included 716 patients treated at 83 centers in Canada, Europe, Israel, and the US from April 2021 to October 2022. This prespecified secondary analysis reports clinical and hemodynamic findings for all 621 women enrolled in SMART. Data for this report were analyzed from February to April 2024.InterventionsTranscatheter aortic valve replacement with an SEV or a BEV.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe composite coprimary clinical end point comprised death, disabling stroke, or heart failure–related rehospitalization. The coprimary valve function end point was the incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, both assessed through 12 months. Secondary end points included the incidence of moderate or severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.ResultsA total of 621 women (mean [SD] age, 80.2 [6.2] years; 312 randomized to the SEV group and 309 to the BEV group) were included in the present analysis. At 12 months, there were no significant differences in the coprimary clinical end point between the SEV and BEV groups (9.4% vs 11.8%, absolute risk difference −2.3%; 95% CI −7.2 to 2.5, P = .35). However, SEV implantation was associated with less bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (8.4% vs 41.8%; absolute risk difference, −33.4%; 95% CI, −40.4 to −26.4; P &amp;lt; .001). SEV implantation resulted in lower aortic valve gradients and larger effective orifice areas at 30 days and 12 months and less mild or greater aortic regurgitation at 12 months compared to BEV implantation. Prosthesis-patient mismatch was significantly lower with SEVs, regardless of the definition used and adjustment for body mass index. Use of SEVs was associated with better quality of life outcomes as assessed by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 ordinal quality of life measure.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong women with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and small aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the use of SEVs, compared to BEVs, resulted in similar clinical outcomes and a markedly reduced incidence of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction through 12 months, including a lower risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch and better 12-month quality of life.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04722250