Aortic Valve (TAVR/TAVI)Wednesday, May 27, 2026

Outcomes of Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valves in Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

1 min read·By E. Nolan Beckett, MD·Source: Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team

Key Numbers

40% remains uncertain

40% undergoing transcatheter aortic valve

95% confidence interval

95% CI

From The Valve Wire

Shorter bypass times despite worse outcomes point to cumulative organ injury, not surgical complexity, as the driver.

ESC 2025 already prefers SAVR below age 70 on exactly these grounds; ACC/AHA 2020 calls for shared decision-making from age 65-80 but has not yet incorporated explant-era mortality data.

The device side echoes the durability concern.

Editor’s take pending for this article; this is the section commentary excerpt.

Source Abstract

Patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement remain a clinically vulnerable group. Although self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves are widely used, the optimal choice in patients with LVEF <40% remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize the available evidence comparing these two valve types in this high-risk population. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing SEVs and balloon-expandable valves in patients with LVEF <40% undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Outcomes included changes in LVEF, aortic gradients, mortality, and safety endpoints. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models, and multivariable meta-regression was performed to adjust for study-level confounding. Five studies comprising 5365 patients were included. SEVs were associated with a greater improvement in 1-month LVEF (mean difference, 2.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 3.83; p = 0.01) and lower mean aortic gradients (mean difference, -2.72; 95% CI, -3.51 to -1.93; p < 0.01). Procedural mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.26-3.11; p = 0.86), 30-day mortality (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.65-3.56; p = 0.33), and 1-year mortality (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.69-1.84; p = 0.44) were similar. SEVs carried an increased risk of moderate or worse paravalvular leak (RR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.46-4.36; p < 0.01). While SEVs may offer superior early LVEF improvement, they are associated with a higher rate of paravalvular leaks. Current data are observational and insufficient to recommend one valve type over another.

Authors: Najah Q, Saleh S, Zubaidi M, Herrmann HC, Pirelli L et al.

Read the Original

Full article at Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team

Open at Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team →

The Valve Wire summarizes; we link out to primary sources for verification.