Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Self-Expanding Valves Shine in Small Aortic Annuli

In patients with severe stenosis in a small aortic annulus (≤ 430 mm 2 ), more than 85% women, should the Evolut self-expanding supra-annular valve (Medtronic) or the SAPIEN balloon-expandable intra-annular valve (Edwards) be preferred for transcatheter aortic

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

In patients with severe stenosis in a small aortic annulus (≤ 430 mm 2 ), more than 85% women, should the Evolut self-expanding supra-annular valve (Medtronic) or the SAPIEN balloon-expandable intra-annular valve (Edwards) be preferred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)? The 3-year results of Small Annuli Randomized to Evolut (SMART trial), which compared the two strategies in this population, were presented at EuroPCR2026 . They show that the hemodynamic benefits observed at 1 year with the self-expanding valve persist at 3 years. Compared with the balloon-expandable valve, hemodynamic performance remains superior and the risk for valve dysfunction is lower. However, these benefits have not yet translated into a reduction in major clinical events. Nevertheless, “these results should influence valve selection in patients with a small aortic annulus. Everyone agrees that poor hemodynamic performance has adverse consequences” stated Howard C. Herrmann , MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, during a press conference.

A Future Impact on Clinical Events?

The consequences of TAVI with less favorable hemodynamic parameters generally result in an increase in clinical events starting at 3 years, he explained. Compared to patients receiving a prosthesis with better hemodynamic outcomes, the mortality curve begins to diverge after 3 years. We should therefore see a clinical difference within the next 2 years. We must now await the results of the planned 5-year follow-up for this trial to confirm an effect on the primary endpoint, which is the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke , or rehospitalization for heart failure . When asked to comment on the results following the presentation, Anna Petronio , cardiologist, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, noted that the latest generation of balloon-expandable valves was not included in the study. “We now have a fifth generation of balloon-expandable valves. It has a larger valve surface area and a lower aortic gradient than previous models. Would the results be different with these new-generation valves?” the cardiologist wondered.

More Than 85% of Participants Were Women

Most women have a smaller-than-average aortic annulus. However, it is known that a small annulus is associated with an increased risk for hemodynamic adverse effects following TAVI implantation. Several studies have shown that self-expanding valves have better hemodynamic outcomes than balloon-expandable valves, thanks to their supra-annular expansion. The international, multicenter SMART trial was designed to assess and compare the performance of these two valves in this patient population. It enrolled 716 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and a small annulus — defined on CT before TAVI as an area of ≤ 430 mm 2 — including a mean age of about 80 years, more than 85% women, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk for Mortality was 3.3%. Patients were included regardless of surgical risk. They were randomized to receive, via a percutaneous approach, either a self-expanding Evolut valve (PRO, PRO+, or FX) or SAPIEN 3/3 Ultra valve. In addition to the composite endpoint for major clinical events, the primary endpoints included hemodynamic structural valve dysfunction (mean gradient ≥ 20 mm Hg), nonstructural valve dysfunction (severe prothesis-patient mismatch (PPM) or ≥ moderate aortic regurgitation ), clinical thrombosis, endocarditis, and aortic valve reintervention. After 3 years, there was no significant difference between the self-expanding and balloon-expandable groups in the composite outcome of mortality, disabling stroke, and rehospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 25.4% and 22.6% of patients, respectively. Likewise, none of the individual components of the primary endpoint showed a significant difference when evaluated on their own.

PPM

In contrast, the rate of bioprosthetic dysfunction at 3 years was significantly lower in the self-expanding group than in the balloon-expandable group (16.3% vs 54.4%). This difference was primarily due to lower rates of structural dysfunction (6.7% vs 46.4%) and nonstructural dysfunction (7.7% vs 20.4%). Compared with balloon-expandable valves, self-expandable valves had a larger valve area, a lower mean aortic gradient, and a higher Doppler velocity index. The rate of moderate-to-severe PPM, as defined by the latest VARC-3 classification, was also significantly lower in the self-expanding group (10.3% vs 35.1%). After adjusting for several variables, the presence of moderate-to-severe PPM was associated, across the entire cohort, with a more than doubled risk for cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.24; 95% CI, 1.18-4.25; P = .032). This association appears even more pronounced in patients receiving a balloon-expandable valve, with a nearly threefold increased risk for cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.20-7.38). “All hemodynamic parameters — both individual and composite — remained superior with Evolut, particularly due to a significantly lower risk of PPM,” commented Herrmann. “The results underscore the importance of minimizing PPM as much as possible,” he concluded. Herrmann disclosed financial relationships with Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, J&J, Medtronic, Carvolix, and Microinterventional Devices. This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01How Much Should We Trust Predictive Scores?

Several clinical scores for predicting asthma exist, notably the Asthma Predictive Index , the modified Asthma Predictive Index , and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score ; the latter demonstrates better overall discrimination, making it useful for children at low-to-moderate risk. “These scores place significant emphasis on the atopic predisposition,” noted Bourgoin-Heck, “including allergic sensitivities, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Their performance varies by age and clinical phenotype. They are highly specific for the diagnosis of allergic asthma , with a positive score associated with a high risk of asthma. However, their sensitivity is not up to par: A negative score does not rule out the diagnosis, leading to a risk of overlooking nonallergic forms.” A chest x-ray is used to rule out differential diagnoses. It may be normal or reveal chest distension or bronchial signs. During follow-up, it is only recommended in cases of fever or severe illness to look for complications such as bronchopulmonary superinfection, pneumothorax , pneumomediastinum , subcutaneous emphysema and ventilation disorders/ atelectasis .

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
02What Is the 10-Year Outlook?

Current data show that complications are rare, about 2%-3%. At 10 years, nearly 90% of implants are still intact, according to Sofcep data. Deterioration is slow and gradual, and even in the event of a rupture, it is often asymptomatic and poses no immediate serious risk. There is generally no urgency to replace an implant, the surgeon explained. “Routine replacement is not warranted. I have no reason to operate and replace the implants if everything is medically fine. The most common reason for replacing implants is the patient’s desire to do so for aesthetic reasons,” emphasized the speaker, who noted that weight fluctuations, pregnancies, and natural aging play a significant role in how the aesthetic outcome evolves.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
03And Then?

At steps 4 and 5, treatment escalation primarily relies on a medium dose of ICS, always combined with a LABA. Before considering a high dose or further escalation, the addition of a second long-acting bronchodilator, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), may be proposed ( moderate-dose ICS-LABA-LAMA ). The goal is to limit the use of high doses of ICS as much as possible by maintaining treatment around an effective moderate dose.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
04What Is the Scientific Evidence?

To assess the effectiveness and safety of these creams, American researchers set out to evaluate 189 homemade sunscreen recipes available on the social media platform Pinterest. The results found that 95.2% of the recipes claimed to be effective. SPF claims appeared in 33.3% of the recipes, with reported values ranging from SPF 20 to SPF 50. However, 68.3% of the recommended recipes provided insufficient protection against UV rays. The authors noted that in this sample of posts, 41.8% had been saved by other users between one and more than 21,000 times, indicating significant interest in “health” information from this social media platform. “This study revealed widespread interest in and acceptance of inadequate information regarding sun protection,” the authors noted. More recently, the authors of an Australian study tested the effectiveness of a natural, homemade sunscreen posted online by a wellness blogger to determine its photoprotective properties — beyond its ability to protect against erythema — compared with a commercially available SPF 50+ sunscreen. The DIY cream contained almond oil, coconut oil, shea butter, beeswax, red raspberry seed oil, carrot seed oil, and zinc oxide. Skin explants were treated with either a commercial SPF 50+ sunscreen or the homemade sunscreen before being exposed to UV rays. Analysis of these skin explants showed that the homemade cream reduced UV-induced damage to DNA and epidermal thickness but did not effectively protect against the formation of sunburn cells. In comparison, the SPF 50+ sunscreen provided effective protection against all parameters studied. The researchers concluded that there is currently no evidence supporting the effectiveness of homemade sunscreen in preventing skin carcinogenesis. They explained that enhanced DNA repair in the first few hours after irradiation does not necessarily mean that apoptosis is prevented 24 hours after UV exposure. They therefore recommended the continued use of approved commercial sunscreens. Finally, in practice, errors in preparing homemade sunscreen formulations cannot be ruled out, particularly when using approximate measurements such as cups, teaspoons, or tablespoons, which can result in formulations that vary from person to person. Without rigorous testing and regulation, as is the case with commercial sunscreens, DIY sunscreens can result in highly variable levels of photoprotection and thus potentially increase the risk for skin cancer. Additionally, the absence of so-called chemical preservatives requires very strict hygiene conditions and increases the risk for bacterial contamination or mold growth. Giordano-Labadie disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition.

Source: www.medscape.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →