Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Small Aortic Annulus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Trial design and patients

The VIVA trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03383445) was a prospective randomized controlled trial (investigator initiated). The study was conducted in 15 centers in Canada, Europe, and Brazil, and included elderly (≥65 years old) patients with severe AS and SAA considered eligible for either SAVR or TAVR by the multidisciplinary heart team of each participating center. Exclusion criteria included the presence of aortic root dilatation >45 mm, coronary artery disease not treatable by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, SYNTAX score >32, significant concomitant mitral or tricuspid valve disease, or prior aortic valve surgery. Clinical and exclusion criteria are listed in Table 1. Patients were initially screened on the basis of an aortic annulus diameter <21 mm as evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography, and the final inclusion of the patient was based on the presence of a mean aortic annular diameter <23 mm and a minimal diameter ≤21.5 mm as evaluated by contrast computed tomography (CT). Severe aortic stenosis was defined as (i) a jet velocity ≥ 4.0 m/s or mean gradient ≥ 40 mmHg or velocity ratio <0.25, and aortic valve area ≤ 1.0 cm² or aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm²/m²; or (ii) mean gradient >30 mmHg and aortic valve area ≤ 1.0 cm² or aortic valve area index ≤ 0.6 cm²/m², and >1200 Agatston units for women or >2000 Agatston units for men as determined by non-contrast CT. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of each participating center, and all patients provided signed informed consent for participating in the trial (trial protocol, including the changes in inclusion criteria and reasons, are reported as Supplemental material).

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive TAVR or SAVR. Random block sizes of 10 were used to conceal treatment allocation and implementation was assessed by an independent statistician (not related to the study). Randomization was centralized, and performed using the electronic case-report form (eCRF) system. Participants and site staff were unblinded to the treatment assigned.

Study procedures

The TAVR procedures were performed according to routine clinical practice in each participating center, and only newer generation valve systems were used in the study, including the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3/ULTRA valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), and the self-expandable Evolut R/PRO/PRO+ valve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN), and the Acurate Neo/Neo2 valve (Boston Scientific, Boston, MA). Prosthesis valve sizing was based on CT measurements and followed the recommendations from the manufacturers. The SAVR procedures were performed according to the standards of the surgical team of each participating center, and all surgical prosthetic valves approved for clinical use were allowed in the study. Also, the decision regarding aortic root enlargement was left to the criteria of the surgeon responsible for the intervention.

Outcomes

The primary efficacy outcome was impaired valve hemodynamics defined as the occurrence of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and/or moderate-severe aortic regurgitation (AR) as evaluated by Doppler-echocardiography at 60 days. Secondary end points included the mean transvalvular gradient at 60 days, and clinical endpoints (death, stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation, cardiac rehospitalization) at 30 days and at follow-up. Patients were followed at 30, 60 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter up to 5 years. Clinical events were defined according to VARC-2 criteria (14). The functional status (NYHA class) and quality of life (as determined by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ]) were evaluated at baseline and at each follow-up visit. There were no changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced.

Echocardiographic findings (for echocardiography examinations at 60 days post-intervention) were evaluated in a central Echocardiography Core Laboratory (Core Lab of the Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, Canada), blinded to the allocated treatment. Severe PPM was defined per-protocol as an indexed effective orifice area (EOA) ≤0.65 cm²/m² (14). Severe PPM was also assessed according to VARC-3 criteria, defined as an indexed EOA ≤0.65 cm²/m² for patients with BMI <30 kg/m² and as an indexed EOA ≤0.55 cm²/m² for patient with BMI ≥30 kg/m² (15).

Statistical analysis

Based on the results of a sub-study from the PARTNER 1 trial (7), the expected rate of severe PPM in the TAVR group was evaluated at 19%, with a rate of moderate-severe AR of 3% (overall incidence of the primary endpoint of 22%). In the surgical group, the expected rate of severe PPM was estimated at 38%, without any anticipated moderate-severe AR (7). A total of 130 patients per group were calculated to provide 80% power to detect significant differences in the composite rate of PPM or moderate-severe AR between groups with a p value <0.05, and the final sample size of the study was estimated at 300 patients (150 patients per group). The study started in August 2017, with a progressive inclusion of participating centers within the 1^st two years of the study. Once all centers were activated and enrolling patients, the COVID-19 pandemic appeared and this translated into a drastic reduction in the enrollment rate in all centers. Additionally, the results of 2 randomized trials showing the non-inferiority or superiority of TAVR for treating aortic stenosis in elderly patients were published during the execution of the study (16, 17), further impending the enrolment of patients after the COVID-19 pandemic. It was finally decided to prematurely stop study enrolment in April 2023, when 156 patients (52% of the estimated sample size) had been included in the study.

The primary and secondary end point analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. A secondary “as treated” analysis including only those patients who finally received the allocated treatment was also performed. Qualitative variables were expressed as percentages and quantitative variables as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) depending on variable distribution. Comparison of numerical variables was performed using the Student’s t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test. Survival curves for time-to-event variables were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and the log rank test was used for group comparisons. Event rates of clinical events at 30 days and at follow-up were summarized as mean difference (95% CI). A p value <0.05 was considered significant. The analyses were performed with SAS (version 9.4).

Importance of knowledge to be gained

Results of this trial will make an important contribution to the management of patients with small aortic annulus by determining whether TAVR will be hemodynamically superior to SAVR for treating patients with severe AS and a small aortic annulus. The strict anatomical criteria applied in a prospective manner and using CT parameters in this trial will translated into the inclusion of a population with true SAA, including a mean aortic annulus diameter and area of ∼21 mm and <350 mm², respectively. This anatomical feature presented a clear sex-related association, with the vast majority of patients being women, and this was in accordance with prior studies including AS patients with SAA.^1,18,19 This could be largely explained by the small BSA in women compared to men,²⁰ but specific sex-specific differences beyond BSA parameters cannot be excluded. Some previous studies reported worse clinical outcomes in women (vs. men) undergoing SAVR, including higher mortality rates and a higher incidence of periprocedural complications.^21,22 Indeed, some studies including a recent meta-analysis showed improved outcomes with TAVR (vs. SAVR) at early and midterm follow-up among women.^23-25

Limitations

Although the study is a prospective, randomized trial, the sample size of the study was limited and the possibility of a type II error for some clinical variables cannot be excluded. Also, there will be no clinical event adjudication committee for this trial. The early termination of the trial could have an impact on the primary endpoint results of the study.