These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes of three different new generation transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.
    Author: Costa G, Buccheri S, Barbanti M, Picci A, Todaro D, Di Simone E, La Spina K, D'Arrigo P, Criscione E, Nastasi M, Sgroi C, Tamburino C.
    Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2020 Feb 15; 95(3):398-407. PubMed ID: 31609073.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: To evaluate outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) using three different new-generation devices. BACKGROUND: Although new generation transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) have demonstrated to improve procedural outcomes, to date few head-to-head comparisons are available among these devices. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective study. From September 2014 to February 2018, 389 patients underwent elective TF-TAVI for native, severe aortic stenosis using a new-generation transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) with a preprocedural multi-detector computed tomography assessment. Among these, 346 patients received an Edwards SAPIEN 3 (n = 134), Medtronic Evolut R (n = 111), or Boston ACURATE neo (n = 101) prosthesis. Differences in baseline clinical characteristics between groups were accounted using the propensity score weighting method. RESULTS: The mean age for the entire study cohort was 81.4 ± 5.2 years while the Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality was 4.0 ± 2.5%. After propensity score weighting adjustment, TAVs did not differently impact on 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Evolut R device showed an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after the procedure (8.3% for SAPIEN 3 vs. 16.7% for Evolut R vs. 2.1% for ACURATE neo, p < .05). At 30 days, patients treated with SAPIEN 3 valve showed a higher mean transvalvular gradient (9.7 ± 7.5 mmHg vs. 6.1 ± 2.4 mmHg vs. 8.4 ± 3.5 mmHg for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01) and a lower rate of more-than-trace paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (18.8 vs. 47.9 vs. 45.8%, for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo, respectively, p < .01). At 1 year, SAPIEN 3, Evolut R, and ACURATE neo TAVs showed excellent and comparable outcomes with no difference in terms of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) (plog-rank = 0.534). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI using new-generation prostheses was associated with high device success (97.0% vs. 92.8% vs. 95.0% for SAPIEN 3, Evolut R and ACURATE neo, respectively) and low complications rates up to 1 year. Evolut R valve was associated with a higher rate of PPI whereas SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with a higher mean transvalvular gradient and lower rate of more-than-trace PVR. At 1-year, MACCE rates were similar among the three groups.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]