Performance of Purpose-Built vs Off-Label Transcatheter Devices for Aortic Regurgitation

Severe pure aortic regurgitation (AR) carries a high mortality and morbidity risk, and it is often undertreated because of the inherent surgical risk. Transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have been used off-label in this setting with overall suboptimal results. The dedicated "purpose-built" Jena Valve Trilogy (JVT, JenaValve Technology) showed an encouraging performance, although it has never been compared to other THVs. The aim of our study was to assess the performance of the latest iteration of THVs used off-label in comparison to the purpose-built JVT in inoperable patients with severe AR. We performed a multicenter, retrospective registry with 18 participating centers worldwide collecting data on inoperable patients with severe AR of the native valve. A bicuspid aortic valve was the main exclusion criterion. The primary endpoints were technical and device success, 1-year all-cause mortality, and the composite of 1-year mortality and the heart failure rehospitalization rate. Overall, 256 patients were enrolled. THVs used off-label were used in 168 cases (66%), whereas JVT was used in 88 (34%). JVT had higher technical (81% vs 98%; P < 0.001) and device success rates (73% vs 95%; P < 0.001), primarily driven by significantly lower incidences of THV embolization (15% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001), the need for a second valve (11% vs 1.1%; P = 0.004), and moderate residual AR (10% vs 1.1%; P = 0.007). The permanent pacemaker implantation rate was comparable and elevated for both groups (22% vs 24%; P = 0.70). Finally, no significant difference was observed at the 1-year follow-up in terms of mortality (HR: 0.99; P = 0.980) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.5; P = 0.355). The JVT platform has a better acute performance than other THVs when used off-label for inoperable patients with severe AR. A longer follow-up is conceivably needed to detect a possible impact on prognosis.