Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: SCOPE 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

C. Tamburino, S. Bleiziffer, H. Thiele, S. Scholtz, D. Hildick-Smith, M. Cunnington, A. Wolf, M. Barbanti, D. Tchetchè, P. Garot, P. Pagnotta, M. Gilard, F. Bedogni, E. Van Belle, M. Vasa-Nicotera, A. Chieffo, O. Deutsch, J. Kempfert, L. Søndergaard, C. ButterR. Trillo-Nouche, S. Lotfi, H. Möllmann, M. Joner, M. Abdel-Wahab, K. Bogaerts, C. Hengstenberg, D. Capodanno

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Few randomized trials have compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprostheses with supra-annular design. The SCOPE 2 trial (Safety and Efficacy Comparison of Two TAVI Systems in a Prospective Randomized Evaluation 2) was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of the ACURATE neo and CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: SCOPE 2 was a randomized trial performed at 23 centers in 6 countries between April 2017 and April 2019. Patients ≥75 years old with an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either the ACURATE neo (n=398) or the CoreValve Evolut bioprostheses (n=398). The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all-cause death or stroke at 1 year. The key secondary end point, powered for superiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days. Results: Among 796 randomized patients (mean age, 83.2±4.3 years; mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score, 4.6±2.9%), clinical follow-up information was available for 778 (98%) patients. Within 1 year, the primary end point occurred in 15.8% of patients in the ACURATE neo group and in 13.9% of patients in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, 1.8%, upper 1-sided 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority). The 30-day rates of new permanent pacemaker implantation were 10.5% in the ACURATE neo group and 18.0% in the CoreValve Evolut group (absolute risk difference, -7.5% [95% CI, -12.4 to -2.60]; P=0.0027). No significant differences were observed in the components of the primary end point. Cardiac death at 30 days (2.8% versus 0.8%; P=0.03) and 1 year (8.4% versus 3.9%; P=0.01), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days (10% versus 3%; P=0.002) were significantly increased in the ACURATE neo group. Conclusions: Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValve Evolut in terms of all-cause death or stroke at 1 year, and it was associated with a lower incidence of new permanent pacemaker implantation. In secondary analyses, the ACURATE neo was associated with more moderate or severe aortic regurgitation at 30 days and cardiac death at 30 days and 1 year. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03192813. © 2020 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2431-2442
Number of pages12
JournalCirculation
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • ACURATE neo
  • bioprosthesis
  • CoreValve Evolut
  • randomized clinical trial
  • supra-annular
  • TAVI
  • TAVR

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Self-Expanding Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: SCOPE 2 Randomized Clinical Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this