Skip to content

Balloon vs. Self Expanding Transcatheter Valve for Degenerated Bioprosthesis

Balloon Expandable vs. Self Expanding Transcatheter Valve for Degenerated Bioprosthesis. THE BASELINE TRIAL.

Status
Recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04843072
Acronym
BASELINE
Enrollment
400
Registered
2021-04-13
Start date
2021-05-01
Completion date
2026-05-01
Last updated
2022-07-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Valve Heart Disease

Brief summary

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) serves a growing spectrum of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Approximately 80% of surgical aortic valve replacements is performed using a bioprosthesis1. Durability of surgical bioprostheses varies based on the patient's age at the moment of implantation, type and size etc2. TAVI has become the preferred treatment for degenerated aortic bioprostheses in elderly patients3. The median time since index surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and for bioprosthetic valve degeneration is typically 8 - 10 years4-6. TAVI in this setting has proven to have equally favorable results as in native aortic valves7. Balloon expandable8 and self-expanding9 transcatheter heart valves (THV) can be used in a degenerated bioprosthesis and each have specific assets and limitations. TAVI in a failed bioprosthesis can cause coronary obstruction, THV migration, paravalvular leakage and prosthesis patient mismatch. The SAPIEN-3 / Ultra and EVOLUT R/Pro are the 2 most commonly used THV platforms in contemporary clinical practice including treatment of failing surgical aortic bioprostheses. Objective: To compare TAVI with EVOLUT R/Pro vs. SAPIEN-3 / Ultra in terms of device success. Study design: International multi-center randomized study with 1:1 randomization to TAVI with SAPIEN-3 / Ultra or Evolut R/Pro. Study population: 440 patients with a failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis (aortic stenosis with or without aortic regurgitation) and selected for transfemoral TAVI by heart-team consensus. Investigational intervention: Transfemoral TAVI with SAPIEN-3 / Ultra or Evolut R/PRO Main study parameters/endpoints: 1. Primary endpoint is device success at 30 days Defined by * Absence of procedural mortality AND * Correct positioning of a single prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location AND * Intended performance of the prosthetic heart valve (no severe prosthesis- patient mismatch and mean aortic valve gradient \< 20 mmHg or peak velocity \< 3 m/s, AND no moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation). Severe prosthesis patient mismatch is defined by effective orifice area (EOAi) ≤0.65 cm2/m2 2. Safety endpoint at 1 year defined by the composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems.

Interventions

DEVICEEvolut R/PRO bioprosthesis

To compare Evolut R/PRO versus Sapien S3/Ultra in failing surgical bioprostheses

DEVICEEdwards Sapien S3/Ultra bioprosthesis

Edwards Sapien S3/Ultra bioprosthesis

Sponsors

Erasmus Medical Center
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
65 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age ≥ 65 years * Failing surgical aortic bioprosthesis requiring valve replacement and eligible for transfemoral TAVI with balloon expandable or self-expanding platform per heart team consensus based on multi-modality imaging assessment (including echocardiography and multidetector CT). * Written informed consent

Exclusion criteria

* Not eligible for Transfemoral TAVI with SAPIEN-3 / Ultra and Evolut R/Pro * Multi-valve defects requiring intervention * Clinically unstable and/or inotropic/vasopressor /mechanical support. * Known mural thrombus in the left ventricle * Presence of a mechanical aortic valve * History of recent (within 1 month) stroke or TIA

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Device success30 days post transcatheter valve implantationDevice success, definition modified from VARC-2 criteria: * Absence of procedural mortality AND * Correct positioning of a single prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location AND * Intended performance of the prosthetic heart valve (no severe prosthesis- patient mismatch and mean aortic valve gradient \< 20 mmHg or peak velocity \< 3 m/s, AND no moderate or severe prosthetic valve regurgitation). Severe prosthesis patient mismatch is defined by effective orifice area (EOAi) ≤0.65 cm2/m2

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure or valve related problems1 year post transcatheter valve implantationSafety endpoint

Countries

Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

Contacts

Primary ContactRutger-Jan Nuis, MD, PhD
r.nuis@erasmusmc.nl+31614858291

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 11, 2026