Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comparison and evaluation of...

Currently, several balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) are available in clinical practice. Each of them has potential advantages and disadvantages that must be taken into account.

New-generation BE and SE TAVs showed similar mid-term outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and better results compared to early-generation devices.BE TAVs showed better results in terms of residual paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), whereas SE TAVs had better performance in terms of residual transvalvular gradients, larger effective orifice areas (EOAs) and therefore lower rates of prosthesis-patients mismatch (PPM). On one hand, supra-annular CoreValve/Evolut SE TAVs seems to have better results compared to SAPIEN XT/3 BE valves when used in the setting of valve-in-valve procedures in small bioprostheses. On the other hand, the need of ensuring an easy coronary re-access after TAVR especially in younger patients seems to favor the large cell design of SAPIEN 3/ULTRA BE valves. Finally, first long-term durability reports seem to suggest lower rates of structural valve dysfunction (SVD) with supra-annular SE TAVs.

Although currently available TAVs showed similar mid-term outcomes, the expansion of TAVR indications toward lower risk, younger patients imposes attention to long-term durability, and to the need of obtaining optimized EOAs and an easy coronary re-access for future percutaneous interventions.