AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aims to assess the outcomes of three new-generation transcatheter aortic valve devices used in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral implantation.
  • Conducted between 2014 and 2018, the study involved 346 patients and utilized a propensity score weighting method to account for differences in clinical characteristics among the three devices (Edwards SAPIEN 3, Medtronic Evolut R, and Boston ACURATE neo).
  • Results showed no difference in 30-day mortality rates or one-year outcomes, but the Evolut R device had a higher risk of requiring permanent pacemaker implantation, while the SAPIEN 3 valve had better performance in terms of transvalvular gradient and lower

Article 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) (p = 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28524DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

transcatheter aortic
16
aortic valve
12
generation transcatheter
8
acurate neo
8
propensity score
8
score weighting
8
aortic
5
outcomes three
4
three generation
4
transcatheter
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!