Impact of SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA on improvement of valve performance: Insights from the multicenter registry: a propensity-score matched analysis

Abstract Backgrounds: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now a cornerstone treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across all risk profiles, including low-risk and younger patients. As such, the performance and durability of transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are paramount. SAPIEN3 Ultra RESILIA (S3 UR) is expected to improve hemodynamics compared with SAPIEN3 (S3) due to the use of RESILIA bovine pericardial tissue and modified sawing maneuvers for each of three leaflets in 20 and 23mm valves. Aim The aim of study was to evaluate the hemodynamic improvement with S3 UR compared to S3 who underwent TAVI. Methods In a multicenter TAVI registry, we identified 1,931 patients who received a balloon-expandable valve over the past three years. We focused on post-procedural effective orifice area (EOA), post-procedural indexed EOA (EOAi), incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), paravalvular leakage (PVL) and post-procedural mean pressure gradient (mean PG) as our primary endpoints. We preformed propensity score matching analysis using a 1:1 ratio. Parameters including aortic stenosis severity, % oversizing and post dilatation were incorporated into the matching model. Results Of patients, mean age was 84 years old and 37.9% were male. EOAi was significantly larger in S3 UR group than in the S3 group for both cohorts [overall cohort: 1.21 (1.02 – 1.36) vs. 1.08 (0.93 – 1.26), P = 0.001; propensity matched cohort: 1.21 (1.01 – 1.35) vs. 1.11 (0.91 – 1.27), p = 0.042, respectively] (Figure 1). Similarly, the degree of PVL was significantly less in the S3 UR group than in the S3 group for both cohorts. In the propensity matched cohort, mild PVL was identified in 6.5% vs. 14.7%, and moderate PVL was present in 0.0% vs. 1.6% (p = 0.028). Peak PG and mean PG were significantly lower in the S3 UR group than in the S3 group for both cohorts. In the propensity matched cohort, peak PG was 17.7 (14.3 – 24.5) vs. 23.2 (18.2 – 29.2) (p = 0.001) and mean PG was 9.0 (7.1 – 12.5) vs. 11.5 (8.9 -14.8) (p = 0.005), respectively. The incidence of PVL ≥ mild, mean PG ≥ 20 mmHg, moderate PPM and severe PPM were tend to be lower in S3 UR group than in the S3 group for both cohorts (Figure 2). Conclusion The S3 UR valve exhibits significant hemodynamic improvements compared to the S3 valve, underscoring its potential for improved clinical outcomes in TAVI patients.